Wishes for a better news media

From the original Consumerist article that broke the Facebook controversy

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 Content 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.

That language is the same as in the old TOS, but there was an important couple of lines at the end of that section that have been removed:

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.

Poor Reporting. Very Poor Reporting.

Read the “New” ToS at the top of my previous post, and the old “ToS” that they reverted back to last night. The language is NOT the same. There are several differences beyond the sentence removed, as I point out at the end of the previous post.

Of course, every news story followed the Consumerist’s lead because today’s society reports the news they read from other news sources in a real-world version of the childhood game of telephone.

I do suspect that despite Facebook saying they have simply reverted to their prior terms temporarily, as they work on putting their new terms into non-legalistic language, the current last sentence is new: “Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content.” And the last sentence the Consumerist claimed was removed was truly the last sentence of the prior section.

0 thoughts on “Wishes for a better news media

  1. DL Emerick

    Yep. I’m no longer in FaceBook — not that I used it much anyway.

    Thanks for the advisory.

    Yes, I know FaceBook tried to recant — but I don’t trust the organization any more.

  2. John

    I don’t look at it as recanting.

    Yes, their new terms were heavily legalistic in writing, but there was nothing grossly out of line with them. They were written as one newspaper article I read wrote from the viewpoint of lawyers making sure Facebook’s ass was covered from lawsuits, without thinking about how the user was going to interpret the legalistic language. Of course, companies are used to the user not reading the terms, so Facebook had no reason to suspect that this time it would be different.

    Now they’ll put the terms in clearer writing, and everyone will be happy, even though they are very likely going to say exactly the same thing. (Though perhaps not, as Facebook is seeking input from the user community on what the terms should say.)

  3. DL Emerick

    When I was a child, I used to form secret clubs, sects, cults, friendship circles — gathering my friends together, writing a charter, a constitution, a plan for organization.

    I was addicted to the idea of membership, belonging to something special — to the idea of binding verbal commitments.

    Perhaps I still am, for I am a Jew, am I not — and bound by the law?

    Well, be that as it may be — I’ve become more hermetic. And, maybe, I’m someone who has been influenced by Qabalah, if not as a fan of it.

    What does it take to change a person’s mind?

    Well, that’s where the problem of social circles, of FaceBook, arises, isn’t it?

    Your friends are those who agree with you — and if (or when) they don’t, Goodbye, Charlie! (Old film, that — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodbye_Charlie.)

    But, anyway — what people need to do is to realize their minds can change, but Facebook won’t promote that!!!

    I guess that I’d start a network interface where you can only make enemies — and leave “friends” to the inferential process of “The enemies of my enemies must be my friends, if I dare to trust them…”

    Or, at least add that as an explicit option — where we agree to disagree — and yet be civil enemies who, alone, can teach us our own follies, just as we strive to convince them otherwise.

  4. John

    That has some potential. You get to select your enemies.
    No one gets to see your enemy list – except for you – that would be counter-productive.
    However, everyone does get to see a list of “Friends, if you think you can trust them.” Those individuals who have 1 or more of your enemies on their enemy list.

    Who do we talk to about creating this — I think it could work.

  5. DL Emerick

    The problem with my rants is that I can’t tell,
    when someone agrees with me, partially, perhaps,
    and when they are just humoring me.

    Worse yet, I can’t recall, sometimes,
    whether I spoke tongue in cheek,
    or dead seriously.

    But, you know, given how people move from being fans,
    to being anti-fans — dissing all they raved about days ago —
    this could indeed fly.

    (Do I s(m)ell (a small question all by itself)
    patent or copyright issues?

    If we called DEFACEBOOK, for instance?

    How does National Lampoon or the Onion get away with it,
    whatever it may be?)