Face/Off: How a Little Change in Facebook's User Policy is Making People Rethink the Rights They Give Away Online

Facebook's getting really good at the non-apology apology. They practiced it in 2006 when they first launched the now-ubiquitous News Feed. They did it again in 2007 when they launched their short-lived Beacon ad service. In 2008 when the New York Times and others reported that it was almost impossible to truly leave the service, they came back not apologizing again.

And now, in 2009, they're at it once again, not-apologizing with the best of them:

We're at an interesting point in the development of the open online world where these issues are being worked out. It's difficult terrain to navigate and we're going to make some missteps, but as the leading service for sharing information we take these issues and our responsibility to help resolve them very seriously. This is a big focus for us this year, and I'll post some more thoughts on openness and these other issues soon.

Did you catch it? Pretty good, huh? Not once does Mark Zuckerberg say he's sorry--or that they're changing their policy--but, boy-howdy, he sure does sound gosh-darned sad about it, doesn't he? You almost want to give him a Palin wink and pull a "who's got your nose" on him just to cheer the little fella up again.

So what's got billionare Zuckerberg so blue? Just that his service is claiming perpetual rights to all its 175 million users' content, even if you kill your account. And, wouldn't you know it, that's rankled some feathers outside of Palo Alto. From gossipy websites to privacy advocates, voices from all over the web are crying foul on the new Facebook Terms of Service that state:

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.

Those pictures of you at that party one time? It's theirs to do with as they please. That story you posted? That too. Your short film? Can I get a "You Betcha"? It used to be that when you left the service, you revoked Facebook's license to the content you'd left behind. But, says Zuckerberg, that's actually a pretty complicated request on a network as tightly woven as Facebook's:

There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with.

That's true, to the degree that his analogy holds up. The problem is that he's using an e-mail address as his example and, as every fake Nigerian prince knows, e-mail addresses aren't very private. People aren't pissed about sharing their e-mail addresses any more than they're pissed about not being able to take back a message they sent once. People aren't pissed about sharing their stuff with other people, they're pissed about handing it over whole hog to Facebook. And they're even more pissed with the ramifications that Facebook's claims has to content like photos, videos, music, stories and the like. That Zuckerberg never even acknowledges that this is the problem makes it very hard to swallow explanations like this one:

In reality, we wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want.

Which is funny, because it wasn't very long ago that their Beacon ad service was doing EXACTLY that. So, Mark, you can forgive the rest of the internet when they say they might not totally extend you that trust. Bummer.

Of course, the rest of the internet has murky Terms of Service too. A TOS is something you agree to every time you sign up on a website (hell, you've even agreed to one if you post comments here). Many of them lay perpetual non-exclusive claim to things you've created on their site. And if the Facebook flap makes people double check the fine print that they often skip over, then perhaps we've learned something useful. Perhaps it's the kick in the pants that's needed to finally move a modern approach to copyright like Creative Commons forward. Another plus.

But few sites ask their users to lay out all of their personal information, share their most-loved photos, bring their whole selves into the digital realm as Facebook does. And so a non-apology apology isn't enough. A promise to "communicate more clearly about these issues" is not enough. It is, in fact, the barest of minimums of what's being asked. But that's textbook Facebook non-apologies: why apologize when it can always just be explained a little more clearly. It's not a question of doing something wrong and undoing it, it's simply a matter of spinning it until people move on.

And, really, they've got all your content already--where are you going to go?

Update 2/18/09: Well that didn't take long--this morning Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg announced that "we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised." He now promises to update the TOS with community input and has started a group to help with that. If this wasn't a pattern with Facebook--do the wrong thing, then make it right--I'd be more encouraged. Until we see the new TOS, paint me sceptical.

Comments

[wjreynolds]

Or you could just not post stuff to your Facebook. Boy, that was easy!

[Really Really]

...wow...last post got deleted....

I guess you don't like the fact that Huffington Post doesn't let you opt out either. There is no way to deactivate your account here....so, um....what's the difference?!?!?

[Guitarsandmore]

I dont care about the comments i post here. But my websites i have come to think of as my own.

They always tell you to create your own website,like it is going to be yours. Facebook needs to rethink their position on this.

The other day a friend of my x wife contacted me through FACEBOOK and that is not necessarily a good thing. I may want to get rid of my FACEBOOK web site if more people start creeping back into my life.

Certainly part of the fun of all this is to be somewhat anonymous. I dont want to leave a trail of breadcrumbs right to my doorstep.

Who knows who might come after you with a lawsuit or a gun? (Hannity might just flip out one day)

When I do a google search on some of my screen names I see that others have copied what I write here and posted it on their own websites. That s OK with me. I have always thought of Huffington Post as a group project that we all work on for the common good. Right now the common good needs all the help it can get.

Best Regards,

G&M

[janye]

I was considering getting on Facebook, but will never do this after learning that they change the rules
all the time.

[rohair]

So Zuckerberg rips-off his boys at Harvard....two for the concept, one for the name....and becomes the man (moneywise, anyway).....now he wants to ripoff his members....that's just how he operates....greed and dishonesty are at the root of his non-monetizing empire....

[TankerRat]

NOW you know WHY I REFUSE to use this so-called "Service." Anybody who does is a fool.

[AnthonyVolpe]

After years of seeing people put webcam photos of themselves online half-naked and giving away damn near every bit of their personal informaiton for all the world to see (whether we bloody want to or not), I hope this is a sign that the pendulum is swinging in the other direction.

WAKE UP, PEOPLE.

[pbg]

They did well to back down. Facebook may be big, but it's all just a bunch of electrons--and free on top of it. They could very easily lose millions of users within a matter of hours, and they could be as dead as CompuServe in a couple of days.
There's this weird remnant of the tech bubble: They're giving away a service for free--one with no technical innovation--gee, a networking site! what an earth-shaking idea--and somehow this translates into real power. It's not.
I mean, you don't even have to go over and get your CDs back before your girlfriend changes the lock.

[Keith52]

Here is what he is saying now:

1. You own your information. Facebook does not. This includes your photos and all other content.

2. Facebook doesn't claim rights to any of your photos or other content. We need a license in order to help you share information with your friends, but we don't claim to own your information.

3. We won't use the information you share on Facebook for anything you haven't asked us to. We realize our current terms are too broad here and they make it seem like we might share information in ways you don't want, but this isn't what we're doing.

4. We will not share your information with anyone if you deactivate your account. If you've already sent a friend a message, they'll still have that message. However, when you deactivate your account, all of your photos and other content are removed.

5. We apologize for the confusion around these issues. We never intended to claim ownership over people's content even though that's what it seems like to many people. This was a mistake and we apologize for the confusion.

[pladymir]

#4 is definitely not true. I had a facebook account for all of two days, over a year ago.
I didn't like it so I deactivated it. A few days ago I decided to set up an account and
it turned out they still had my info- ALL of it- including photos.

[PennP]

"3. We won't use the information you share on Facebook for anything you haven't asked us to. We realize our current terms are too broad here and they make it seem like we might share information in ways you don't want, but this isn't what we're doing."

Since he undertook the theft of intellectual property wholesale, entrusting him to know what users "want" done with their information is pretty risky. The terms are patronizing.

Also, content being "removed" does not mean content being "destoyed and forever eliminated from our servers and storage media," bla bla bla. The way it's worded, I'd conclude that Facebook is archiving everything you do on its site. If their license is simply to allow access to others, why would they retain your workproduct after you've left? They should be required to destroy it all.

Frankly, this stuff needs regulation, and the FTC will probably take action re privacy next year.

[Matt Trainer]

You said it yourself:

"Of course, the rest of the internet has murky Terms of Service too. A TOS is something you agree to every time you sign up on a website (hell, you've even agreed to one if you post comments here). Many of them lay perpetual non-exclusive claim to things you've created on their site. And if the Facebook flap makes people double check the fine print that they often skip over, then perhaps we've learned something useful. Perhaps it's the kick in the pants that's needed to finally move a modern approach to copyright like Creative Commons forward. Another plus. "

Every site has pretty much the same ToS. Read any of those closely and you'll give yourself the same migraine/ego trip/priva­cy-panic-a­ttack you just had.

Check out the policies on any other social site if you want to do real reporting.

MySpace, for instance:
"By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the MySpace Services, you hereby grant to MySpace a limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content solely on or through the MySpace Services, including without limitation distributing part or all of the MySpace Website in any media formats and through any media channels"

[blah7]

you'll notice that the MySpace TOS says "a limited license to use, modify....", while the FB TOS said "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy"

Definitely a little difference between "limited" and "irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide"....

[kps888]

A friend asked me just today why I am not on Facebook. This is why.

[LREKing]

Don't go there myself, but I'm curious whether the new (retracted ToS) would include movie clips, music from unsigned bands, fiction and so on. It appears it would.

[DaneAZ]

FB is now "saying" they have taken these policies out.
Sure.
I'll believe it when a good lawyer has read through their terms and tells us what they REALLY say.

[LDnearthesea]

Just six or seven years ago, none of these sites even existed. Anonymity needs to make a comeback.
This Zuckerberg character is another young billionaire who has made his money from basically not doing much of anything constructive, as Facebook doesn't lower one's MPG, doesn't take thousands to work like public transportation, doesn't teach six year olds how to read or do math, and isn't much more than entertainment most people should avoid so that they can get out of the house and actually meet people the old-fashioned way! just think, this college drop out has a s***-load of cash for not doing anything really viable for the good of society, and he probably has a tax lawyer and tax accountant working to make sure he pays as little as possible in taxes so he doesn't have to contribute much to society, paying down the national debt, or pay for overseas wars. Facebook is just another waste of modern technology, unfortunately, and the same for MySpace. Now YouTube: that's another story! Where else can one actually see entertainment that might have some historical value? Where else can you see Howlin' Wolf or Anita O'Day in film clips of their past performances that rarely if ever got on the TV or seen even seen by many live in the clubs they perfomed? PBS specials don't have a lot of what YouTube members post, regarding the history of music or sports or other social events.

[ssg13565]

I didn't have a good reason before, but I do now.

I much prefer to put most of my content on my own website for which I pay a small fee rather than use the free services such as facebook. I put my photographs almost exclusively on my personal web site. I do not use the photo sharing web sites.

I just liked having the control of format that doing it myself allows. Now I see that there is an even better reason to keep it all within my own control.

[susiesorority]

Doesn't surprise me. I'm glad I've never gone near that site.