Relating specifically to this comment you make above:

“YES - we know that moving this data around seems pretty esoteric and something only advanced nerds worry about. And YES we know that moving data brings up all sorts of fears and potential of loss of privacy. But all the roots of all our problems go back to the fact that THEY are telling ME what I can do with MY data.

Its a fundamental right we own - not them.”

Is it possible what Facebook is really telling us is what we can do the tools they provide us to manage our data? In other words for all the talk that they control *our* data, it was *our* choice to put our data in their silo and use their tools, or MySpace’s, or now Google’s. Each of these simply provides capabilities. The fact that they don’t let us do some things w/our data has more to do w/the limitations of the tools they are providing us and not a statement that they won’t let us get to *our* data. If tomorrow you were to stop using any of these services, w/in a few months the value of “your data” to them would diminish to nothing. Perhaps your interests might change, maybe you move to a new city or country, perhaps you stop talking to half of the friends you were connected to using their tool, all of these changes that are out of their purview if you leave greatly reduce the value of the information they have on you. In other words our fundamental rights have not been taken away because data continues to be created and evolves, but when you choose to use their tools, they should have the right to determine what’s possible and what’s not. If you don’t like it, don’t use these ;)…right?

Oh yes, and there s/b economic value to them otherwise why would anyone provide these services. Look at Twitter, do you really think that their investors and creators are happy that it’s generating little to no revenues. Even the mighty Joi Ito has launched the Japanese version w/a revenue model fm the get-go. Is this wrong? Someone has to pay, and hopefully they have a revenue model somewhere in their business to afford to pay. Whether the service provider pays (through an ad model or fm their investors) or the users pay (through a subscription model). If it means that the tool providers (ie. Facebook, MySpace, et. al.) limit capabilities to enforce a business model than that’s what it is and we either choose to play or to join the next tool provider who has figured out how to give us a different service w/tools that let us do more.

My rant to your rant is more directed at the fact that people think they have rights that are being violated, when in reality that’s not the case, and their choice to play w/some of these tool providers is just that, their choice. But to say the tool providers are locking any one in, in a world where the economic value of information only lasts as long as these services can keep obtaining it fm users and doing something that generates economic value w/it, I think it’s absurd to think that they actually have us locked in any way.