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.

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

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?

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?

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.

http://www.businessinsider.com/four-terms-of-se...

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