Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Reverts ToS Change After User Uproar
rarel writes "CNN and other media outlets report that Facebook reverted their TOS update and went back to using the previous one. 'The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."' Facebook's controversial changes to its Terms of Service, previously commented on Slashdot, included a mention that (users) 'may remove (their) User Content from the Site at any time. ... However, (they) acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of (their) User Content,' triggering a massive uproar from users and privacy groups."
An important precedent has been set. The uproar created by the community, including some people cancelling their Facebook memberships, caused the Terms of Service to be reverted. We must remember this. It should be a rallying cry: "Remember Facebook".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Never underestimate the ignorance of many lawyer types. That's why you often get TOS and such that are so bad - lawyers, not having to fight against the other side's lawyers, tend to write things in their own favor, using simple, broad, ultimately overreaching terms. Still in legalize, of course, so you need a lawyer to understand the suckers.
I don't read AC A human right
I posted this last time, it seems that no one seems to understand that their ToS change is quite standard.
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("SourceForge Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SourceForge. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed , all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
Why the knee jerk reaction to facebook having the same policies as slashdot? If you delete your slashdot account, what do you think happens to all of your archived comments?
Think for a moment about the institution you're talking about: something deep-rooted for centuries, penetrating every aspect of western life.
Now think about Facebook. Not even a decade old, and easily replaced.
Which do you think is easier to change with less uproar? Don't magnify the response on Facebook out of proportions: you don't see congressional hearings, massive politicizing, years of debate, marches in front of mansions, and constant media coverage on this admittedly very minor issue.
In other words, the uproar over the banking industry IS THERE. The uproar over the housing crisis IS THERE. The uproar over the fundamentals of the American economy IS THERE. You're not addressing the sheeple you imagine.
You're grandstanding, and it shows, and it doesn't become you.
I won't even tell you about the lawyers I've had to battle (in 2 different corporations) because they wanted a complete list of all of the Open Source libraries and associated copyrights, BEFORE we even started the project.
The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval.
So wait, you are saying that a lawyer, who is not technically savvy, wanted information to help ensure the company was protected (maybe from a TOS that says something "use of this OSS for personal use is OK but for business use requires you to ....."). And he wanted this information BEFORE you started installing/using the software? Gee, I wonder why a lawyer would want to read a contract before someone, who is not a lawyer, agreed to use the product and thusly enter the company into the contract. So then you guys go overboard, because you act like this lawyer is evil; and according to you this is why the lawyer gets fired. So far the only thing I have read is: "blah blah blah....we are jerks...blah blah blah"
Not all lawyers are evil...I would wager the amount of evil lawyers to good lawyers is about the same ratio as the amount of evil programmers to good programmers - actually probably less since lawyers could be disbarred if they get caught breaking the law. He was doing his job - protecting the company. You may think you know everything about OSS TOS, though I doubt you have read every single TOS out there for all the software that you use, but you are no lawyer.
Next time try and be a team player. If I ever ran into a person like you and was in a position to give them a job it would never happen. I would rather give the job to someone who appreciates and believes in using the best product for the job (be it closed source or open source) and would help the legal team go through the TOS (and to let them know the information they REALLY need) to make sure the company does not get put into a detrimental contract.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
So telling anyone anything is equivalent to yelling about it on a public street? I don't think so.
I hope you don't use email - after all, if that information goes through a company's servers, it's fair game for them to do what they like with it, as you might as well have published it on the front page of the news right?
(If you're going to say that email isn't a "public site", well, neither is facebook - access to information can be restricted to only certain people, just like with email.)