The idea that the social data collected is going to be accurate and useful is a stretch. People are censoring or filtering their own overt behavior to appear a certain way.

They want to keep up with the other cool kids. Peer pressure looms in the like landscape. While many hope for a world where people express their unique individuality without fear or embarrassment – that’s a long way off and it’s folly to think that a new open graph infrastructure will change deeply rooted mental modes.

I wrote about the fool’s gold of Facebook data nearly a year ago (http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/facebook-data-gold-or-pyrite) but your post puts a spotlight on the potential further degradation of that data through the implementation of the like button.

Will marketers pay for this data? Absolutely. But how much will be a product of how effectively they can use the data. I’m still not sure it’s that useful, and once targeted by marketers, how long until users further curtail and censor their social activity?
.-= AJ Kohn´s last blog ..Top Tweets is a Trojan Frog =-.

I also censor visits to places where other family members are involved. For example, I have never checked in at my daughter’s school, and if my wife were to go and visit a doctor, I probably wouldn’t check in there either.

However, this censorship doesn’t necessarily mean that the data is completely useless. While the check-in feed is not an accurate portrayal of where most of us spend our time, the fact that we are willing to associate our names with certain places DOES have its benefits. Think about it – if Burger King only takes my money but I don’t openly brag about Burger King food, their benefit from my patronage is minimal. But if Foursquare can get me to rave about SnootyUberCool Bar & Disco, then more people are going to hear about it.

And it’s better to have customers that talk about you, rather than customers who keep their patronage a deep dark secret.
.-= John E. Bredehoft´s last blog ..When will Microsoft give birth to Natal? =-.