As I was writing my last post about the arms race between the client and the server, a thought crossed my mind.

Why has the social networking arms race come down to Facebook and Google?

Facebook is #2 in the social networking space and Google is #I-don't-care. Why? Because Google doesn't have a viable social network.

Don't bother with Gmail, YouTube or Okurt.

Okurt isn't in the same league as Facebook. Just trust me on this.

Gmail, YouTube and whatever other Google properties aren't social networking sites. Just don't try to make that argument.

That's like saying Hotmail, the LA Times or Amazon is a social network. Stop it.

So then I read the Cold War comparison( more here ), and I realized it was very exaggerated and not really true, but made for an interesting headline and topic. (Well played, Duncan, well played).

So Google is trying to tip the dominoes. With the release of OpenSocial and FriendConnect, Google is trying to get other countries, er, ah, sites to join them and thrust itself into the social networking scene. As more fall, more will be more likely to fall, or something to that effect.

The problem is, Google is shooting blanks, and Facebook is still firing back, playing right into Google's hands.

Google opens. Facebook opens some more. Google opens even more. Facebook... you get the point.

The difference is, people actually care about, and can build applications around Facebook's openness.

It's like poker, but not. Google is getting Facebook to go all in, but Google is playing with house money. Why should they care if they lose?

On the other hand, if Google can accumulate second-tier sites and entice Facebook into blowing open it's doors, there is an open conduit from Facebook to thousands of other sites, and that conduit is Google.

If I were Facebook, I'd call Google's bluff before I lose the only thing valuable I have.