Facebook reverts to old terms of service, working on new version that “everybody can understand”

February 17, 2009 | Eric Eldon | Comments | |

Well, that was pretty fast. Facebook has reverted to its prior terms of service — due to a backlash from some users, media outlets and privacy groups — while it works out a new version. Facebook had introduced a number of changes on Feb. 4 that company founder Mark Zuckerberg describes today as “overly formal and protective.” One issue with that version was wording that said Facebook owns your personal data indefinitely, even if you delete your own account. Another was a line stating that Facebook owns licensing rights to content on sites that let users share information back to Facebook.

The company says it plans to introduce a new new version, written in “language everyone can understand.” It is also asking for user feedback in a Facebook group it has set up, accommodatingly titled the “Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.”

From the company blog post Zuckerberg just published:

Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we’ll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms.

Legalese written in plain English? Intriguing. Most corporate web sites have formal, protective and hard-to-read terms.

As background, Facebook announced it was making the changes on Feb. 4, but nobody seemed to have noticed or cared. The issue exploded on Sunday, however, when an article posted on the Consumerist blog detailed how the changes seemed to take away users’ rights. Since then, the issue has been covered widely by technology and mainstream media outlets.

Facebook tried to end the debate yesterday by clarifying that users’ privacy settings determined how the company itself could use the data. But the Feb. 4 wording remained in place, and continued to raise eyebrows. Today, a leading privacy group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that it was lodging a federal complaint to try to force the social network to revert to its old version.

In his post from this evening, Zuckerberg says the company has spent the last couple of days debating how to move forward. It solicited feedback from outside organizations and from some users (in the form of its new polling feature that appeared in some users news feeds earlier today) and made the decision to revert — it expects to have a new version ready in the next few weeks.

Next Story: Two game firms merge to form Blade Games
Previous Story: Obama’s pick for antitrust chief linked Google to antitrust last year

Bookmark and Share

Tags:

Photo of Eric Eldon

About the Author, Eric Eldon

Eric currently covers digital media technology and business news, especially what's happening on social networks and their platforms. He also writes and edits stories about venture capital, and lots of other stuff, too. He started at VentureBeat in the spring of 2007, half a year or so after Matt Marshall left his reporting job at the San Jose Mercury News to found the site. Eric previously cofounded a startup called Writewith, that was building editorial software for newspapers and other groups of writers. The startup didn't work out, but he learned a lot.

  • Facebook spokesperson Barry Schnitt also posted this reply. Worth reading!
    http://www.yojibee.com/2009/02/18/the-reply-fro...
  • Terry
    My zombie pokes are original art and my intellectual property so I need to be able to release them under GPL for future generations to benefit , not for facebook to make a million dollars off of.
  • Seems like the problem for Facebook is that too many people understood the language of their ToS.
  • While perception is reality, and the emotional response suggests that Facebook needs to do a better job of being consultative with its community versus delivering material edicts from on high, the truth is that this is much ado about nothing.

    We create a "snail trail" when we plug into communities online, that snail trail becomes substrate that interconnects with other users and discussion threads.

    It's just not reasonable to expect that you can rip that out, creating virtual potholes in the communal space.

    Also, why do we begrudge Facebook as nefarious for wanting to monetize these snail trails when we happily accept Google monetizing our traversals, web pages, images and the like? It’s just silly, in my opinion.

    Check out:

    Why Facebook’s Terms of Service Change is Much Ado About Nothing.
    (http://bit.ly/xxE4d)

    For more fodder on this one.

    Mark
  • anonymous
    And you're completely missing the point, once again. The Facebook TOS changes gave it more powers than is necessary for the service to run effectively. So this is a just and reasonable victory for users, and not "much ado about nothing".
  • Anonymous, what do you think about this?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/four-terms-of-se...
  • anonymous
    I think, again, if Facebook's TOS didn't matter, then they didn't need to change them. I am sure there are issues with other TOS out there, and we should be mindful of them as well. When lawyer's are saying Facebook's revised TOS were particularly over-reaching, and you write a story saying they are the same as everyone else, your bias comes through.

    The distrust of Facebook as a steward of our personal data is justified for at least one of many reasons: Their revenue does not justify their massive and ambitious valuations. They deserve to be watched carefully and closely, because all they have to leverage at the end of the day is that personal data. Giving them a pass on an unnecessarily broad terms in their TOS is unwise and unnecessary.

    If, at the end of the day, Facebook has to face either bankruptcy or monetizing user data in unethical ways (and I can think of plenty), I would want to see them go out of business. What about you?
  • Exactly. An anonymous responder makes a "you're wrong" comment with no specifics whatsoever.

    That's why I say the larger issue is discomfort with Facebook as a good community operator (esp. relative to more offensive TOS' that no one pay attention to), which on some level gives too little credit for the customization/privacy controls they have built and a proven willingness to course correct when they get it wrong. The TOS language itself is pretty innocuous when you really grok how soupy and commingled socialized content gets.
  • anonymous
    I put plenty of specifics on his last post that argued that we should just shut up about it. That was before Facebook capitulated, and I think you've all come down on the wrong side of this issue.

    When Zuckerberg was asked about how he felt about some of the mishaps involving users being caught in photos, losing their jobs and whatnot, Zuckerberg responded callously, "Well, we do have privacy controls". Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for a company that claims to take privacy seriously. You would never hear a response like that out of Larry Page. If users aren't understanding the privacy controls, how to use them, or the implications of their activity on the network, then it's worth exploring how to remedy that. A company that truly cares about user experience rather than becoming the next MSFT wouldn't answer so blithely. And so, you're right, a lot of this comes from uneasiness with Facebook knowing everything we say and do. Perhaps people don't trust Facebook, and... why should they?
  • To be clear, the fact that FB capitulated hardly validates that the TOS change in itself was wrong or a big deal. It more validates that part of building real community is trust, communication and coordination, and this is the area where FB needs to grow up.

    FB recognized that perception was reality, and arguing the points was only going to make them seem heavy handed so they backed off, will socialize the context and likely come up with language that does the same thing but "feels better."

    I am not familiar with the quote you refer to but it would be hardly surprising because perception is that FB comes up with these things fully baked in their own heads without cluing the community in.

    That's the dog in my opinion and the specifics of the TOS and what they mean in the real world are the tail (i.e., just not that big of a deal), but I recognize that plenty feel differently.

    Cheers,

    Mark
  • anonymous
    Well, it sounds like you think Facebook is not communicating their trustworthiness effectively, but they are trustworthy. Thus, the TOS is not a problem for you, because even though the language can grant them the ability to do things users don't want them to do, you don't believe they will do those things.

    Fine. But I have no reason to think they are trustworthy, and the TOS is not a problem for what it says, but what it potentially allows them to do. It's not a problem until it becomes a problem... but why wait for a problem? I'm still not sure why so many people are lunging to play this down. For everything everyone in tech is saying, the social network is a major communications and media platform of tomorrow. Facebook is ambitiously trying to dominate such a significant space. I say go for it, Facebook, but it's going to be on everyone's terms.

    Many people are saying, "Facebook is free. If you don't like their policies, then leave." Well, Facebook asks me every single day to use their site. If they don't like users making demands about how it uses our communications, then they can go ahead and cancel our accounts. I have a feeling that someone like Google would welcome us with "open" arms.
  • It makes no sense that Facebook would risk messing up a good thing by edging in on people's intellectual property. They had people's trust and then they go and risk losing it; not smart.