For about a month, Facebook owed you. Well, "you" being the millions of current (since Jan/Feb 2009) Facebook-ers. On Wednesday, after a week of "protest" by Facebook users, the company backed off for the time being, leaving most happy, but with an ominous feel in the air (web?).
Wait, lets back up, you don't know what Im talking about? Facebook is the largest social networking site, where millions of people create their own accounts and share "content" with eachother. This "content" ranges from demographic information, personal information, comments and letters to other Facebook-ers, and photos. A Facebook account is free, and a user shares freely the content of their account, but until recently a user had the option of ending his or her account and removing all of their "content" from Facebook. These "Terms of Service" changed some weeks ago, saying that Facebook would retain copies of archived content, and created a bit of a backlash. Users were upset and claimed that they no longer owned their own pictures, and personal ID, some were worried what Facebook might do with it. (Use photos to post in ads other places on the internet? On a bus? Sell the demographics, addy and phoney to soliciters?) Some called for a boycott (whatever that means), and some claimed they would, or probably did, cancel their accounts. (This is the most ironic part of the story, because people who were upset that Facebook could keep their content after they quit, went and quit and let Facebook keep their content. How was that an effective protest?)
Facebook claims that the policy was designed to keep continuity, which makes perfect sense to me. If a user has an active account, and shares with others regularly, their departure would effect every other user's account with whom they shared content. A photo that person uploaded and shared, and others tagged, would be deleted, and the other users would no longer have that photo. Same with comments; if the user posted a comment for someone else, that comment would be deleted from the other user's account. When joining Facebook or other networking sites a person must recognize that they are contributing to a community that will continue on with or without them, for that reason all content they contribute should be seen as a gift to the community. If a user doesnt feel comfortable giving content to be held for life, they might think again about posting every picture they ever took, or instead posting them on a secure site and providing only links.
The ominous part now: the switch back to the old Terms is temporary, until Facebook clarifies better what they hope to accomplish in the New Terms. My guess, is that they will be much more similar to the just-reversed-new Terms than the old Terms. I guess this serves as a warning/opt-out period, if you arent happy about what the new-New Terms might include, now is your chance to delete without leaving archives of your content for Facebook. If not, well, youve been warned...
http://http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/18/facebook.reversal/index.html?iref=newssearch
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
OK, so I have a Facebook account. I was an "early adopter" too - I think I've had it since 2004.
I decided long ago that I basically relinquish control over any content I put on the Internet, including Facebook. As the IT director at my college liked to say, "when you pull down your pants on the Internet, you do it for the world."
I once was dumb enough to post my e-mail address in the "guestbook" of a website and had no ability to remove it. I realized too late that absolutely anyone (and in particular spammers) could get my e-mail address.
Terms or no terms, Facebook probably owns me. At least the "me" that is my profile. It's a semi-scary thought, which is why I try to put it out of my head. Especially 'cause it doesn't make a difference if I try to delete myself from Facebook!
I guess I'm continually making compromises when it comes to fitting into the world around me, and Facebook is no different. Is Facebook too much of a compromise when it comes to my privacy? Maybe it is.
For now, I'll keep my pants up on the Internet - and anywhere else someone can snap a digital photo and tag me on Facebook!
And if you friend me, I'll accept it - but don't be offended if it takes me a few months to sign onto Facebook. :)
I think the average Facebooker doesn't quite understand the implications of the new ToS. I was talking to one person about it, and even after explaining what it meant, they still didn't think it was a big deal. Not a big deal! People are so hooked on Facebook, they would probably still do it even if the ToS called for relinquishing the rights to their first born child.
Sounds like deja vu all over again. Facebook has modified its ToS before only to have to back down later after people complained. Clearly their goal is to make money off of everyone with an account, they just haven't figured out how to do it. Wait around awhile for the next attempt.
Post a Comment