What bothers me is that Google is taking the stance that they have the right to lock my data in their service if they feel like it.
That's why that position, to me, is untenable. Don't do evil indeed: you just conceded the other side (Facebook) their main argument (that they don't have to be open, only if they feel like it).
Obviously I must have phrased my position wrong, based on the reaction.
Yes, they are taking that stance, since they are imposing conditions on exporting data from gmail. If I owned and could do anything I wanted with my data on gmail, then Google could not impose restrictions. They just did (in their API restrictions). That's what I'm very concerned about.
Well, I want an API where I can get all my Gmail messages with their metadata, all formatted as Clojure maps. Is Google imposing restrictions on me because nobody has bothered implementing that? Not really. It's analogous.
As long as Google provides ways to get all your data that are free, public, easy to parse, and well-documented, they aren't imposing restrictions. If they add extra APIs or additional formats on top of that, it's gravy. Remember, the point of having these exports is to be able to get your data out and switch from service to service, so that the market stays competitive. It's not so that you have a fully-automated Google API for your profile that other programs can interact with.
This sounds to me like arguing over whether BSD is more free than GPL. Google made it difficult (but still not impossible) for other services to gain access to your contacts data if those services are unwilling to reciprocate. The goal of this is obviously to incentivize companies to allow you to export your data from them (which increases competition and is better for the consumer). There is still nothing stopping you from exporting your contacts to a CSV and importing them elsewhere.
The csv is always available. This didn't affect that at all. I don't think they are obligated to provide export in every way you'd prefer, as long as they provide a standard and widely understood format.
That'd require government control. Since there is no government agency that can forbid Facebook from trapping your data, Google is trying to use its position to do so. I think it's very fair.
That's why that position, to me, is untenable. Don't do evil indeed: you just conceded the other side (Facebook) their main argument (that they don't have to be open, only if they feel like it).