backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 9 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Mar 4 at 12:32 AM

Facebook TOS change provokes mass outrage. Some opinions of this surprise move by the planet's largest social networking site?

You have probably read about the recent attempt by Facebook to modify its terms of service (TOS), which was reported on DailyTech last week.  The move by the world’s largest social networking site caused a predictable uproar, which forced the site to quickly back paddle and revert back to its previous TOS – at least for the time being.

Such a move understandably left more than a few loyal users feeling disgruntled or disillusioned, while others have promptly deleted their Facebook accounts all together.

In the midst of the general cacophony of unhappiness were some interesting views which provoked a double-take from me.  Let me highlight some of them here.

Kara Swisher, who is the co-executive editor of the All Things Digital website was almost brutal in presenting her view; “If you send something to 400 people and publish it, it's publishing – just the way the Wall Street Journal is. I think people don't realize it’s publishing... it's not private anymore."

Liza Porteus Viana, writing at FoxNews.com agreed that anything shared on a Facebook page is essentially shared for life.  Essentially, users should not be expecting privacy after sharing photos and other information about themselves with hundreds of their friends.

At the end of the day though, this could well be nothing more than an overzealous legal team trying to better protect the social networking site against the frivolous lawsuits of our generation.  Facebook could have realized that it was promising more than it could deliver legally as a result of its various data-sharing schemes; the possibility of lingering caches across its server farms, or even data backups that might remain after the deletion of an account.

Countering this argument, of course, is that designing a proper system for removing content quickly and permanently should hardly be rocket science.  It is also logical that if a person leaves a service, it would not be an unreasonable expectation that their content be deleted in tandem.

What are my own thoughts on this matter?  Bearing in mind just how easy it would be to track specific Facebook accounts and cache everything, the question I’ll pose would be just how hard is it to create software to archive everything ever “published” on any Facebook account?  When that happens, would Facebook be liable as an accomplice for copyright infringement then?  

To keep things complicated, let’s leave off with a conspiracy theory:  perhaps the attempt to modify the TOS is simply a prelude to Facebook launching some snazzy new service.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Copyright
By Screwballl on 2/25/2009 1:42:40 PM , Rating: 3
if you add your own copyright watermark on any image or file, other companies have to respect that copyright even if their TOS states "we own the content as soon as it is uploaded", the person with the copyright is still the owner... without that watermark, they can legally use it in any of their material, advertisements or other uses...




RE: Copyright
By mindless1 on 3/4/2009 12:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
Are you certain that is true still, when someone agrees to a TOS that waives their rights? If the TOS is (was after changed, before changed back) valid, it would seem to be a timing issue, which content existed prior to this TOS change and which content was uploaded after a reasonable notification period and effort to inform about the TOS change effects on existing users.


Why comment after the fact?
By fatedtodie on 2/25/2009 1:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
We get it people didn't like the ToS change, that is why Facebook removed it 2 days ago. Why write this up after teh fact? What is to gain from speculating on something that no longer exists?




RE: Why comment after the fact?
By mindless1 on 3/4/2009 12:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
With forethought, it took active effort to come up with and deliberately change the TOS from what they were.

Why think about it now? Because it's good to contemplate their intent, their reasons for doing so, what their motivation was and how that motivation may cause further changes in the TOS or other policies and actions.

Beware of those who like to change agreements after the fact without the other party seeking the change. Primarily it's a back-stabbing tactic.


Mising the Point
By noirsoft on 2/25/2009 1:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
Facebook said this is not about deleting a user's profile. It's about things like keeping comments posted to another user's wall when the poster's account is deleted. Should they go and delete all of those? What about posts responding or quoting the post made by the deleted user? Do they have to delete those?

Having a clause saying that they are allowed to keep posted content after account deletion means they don't have to worry about this sort of thing.




RE: Mising the Point
By mindless1 on 3/4/2009 12:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
It should be the account holder's choice whether to keep or remove the content, after all they did choose to delete their entire account for some reason.

Not sure what "worrying about" it is supposed to mean. Policies and maintenance/removal of site content is just a fact of life when it comes to a website. They have to have a way to police and remove content already, their larger concern ought to be keeping their users happy which comes from leaving those users with choices instead of declaring they have none.

In this day and age, tracking comments with an account should be a trivial matter. Deleting things like replies and the quoted text should be as well. This is far more a political issue than a technical one.


The Power of Groupthink.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: The Power of Groupthink.
By meepstone on 2/25/2009 1:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
i thought ppl uploaded their crappy music to youtube which has no community and crappy artwork to deviantart that has no community.


RE: The Power of Groupthink.
By mindless1 on 3/4/2009 12:32:14 AM , Rating: 1
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Sure, few if any one pic or blurb there is going to be worth much, but do you deny the entire site has monetary value and this is due to the content no matter how lame most of it may be?

For better and worse, social networking sites are a bold statement about how fragile our youth are, how much they're willing to be conformists just to feel liked, to be part of some group even if the group mentality is anti-conformism. Irony at it's best, the members of such groups tend to have great fear about rejection and band together so readily with strangers they'll never even see AFK.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments


Latest By Paul Mah













botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki