Good thing I don't use FB that much since it's a daunty task maintaining several social networking accounts. I only keep Friendster and Multiply, which is more than enough.
Facebook
Saturday, February 28, 2009
by: Melanie Lim
THE most popular social networking site on the web boasting 150 million users worldwide became supremely unpopular a few weeks ago after it revised its terms of service to even more repressive terms.
Its terms of service read, “You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully-paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Contest you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.
Valentine's 2009 blog
Whew! You have to be out of your mind to accept terms of service like these. Who does Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg think he is? God? And what are we? Morons?
But the lengthy and mind-blowing paragraph above is not what caused the furor in the first place. The lines that follow did: You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however, you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
The former terms of service had NOT granted Facebook any rights to original content that a user uploaded once the user closed his or her account. Facebook in its revised terms of service owns you FOREVER. That’s what the furor is about.
Yet, despite the mind-boggling paragraphs above that leave us out of breath, Facebook claims they do NOT have ownership over user content. If they don’t have ownership, what do they have? Usufruct?
Wake up. It’s time to get paranoid over what you post. Don’t get too comfy on the “subject only to your privacy settings” phrase. After all, why would Facebook craft their terms of service so well to avoid a lawsuit if Facebook never intends to do anything users would not want them to do?
In the face of a looming revolt, Facebook wisely backed off and reverted to its old Terms of Service. But YOU have not won. The old and revised don’t differ materially in meaning. Zukerberg was right.
Read the Terms of Service again. “...If you choose to remove your User content, the license granted above will automatically expire...” But I thought the license was “perpetual?” I’m getting neither clarity nor comprehension here.
Zukerberg says the company would revert back to its previous version of terms of service that “everybody can understand.” So now he thinks we’re morons?
Well...Zukerberg IS right. We ARE morons. What would you call people willing to sign their minds away—-forever? Wake up.