Facebook's about-face: Change we can believe in?

Facebook has had another awkward coming-of-age moment.

Late on Tuesday night, the massive social network reversed a change to its terms of service (TOS) that had meant that its license on user content--a longstanding but little-publicized claim to an "irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license" for promotional efforts--would no longer expire if a member deleted his or her Facebook account.

Over the weekend a popular consumer advocacy blog, The Consumerist, declared the change a cause for alarm. Buzz started to spread: could Facebook make your personal photos public? Or could it hand over that drunken karaoke video to the National Enquirer when the guy belting out Van Halen decides to run for Senate in a few years?

First, Facebook attempted to justify the change. But with a threat of legal action from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) looming, and with the modified TOS, Facebook's team likely realized that a "trust us on this one" attitude wasn't going to calm down the critics.

The pattern was remarkably similar to what unfolded in Facebook's last two big image fiascos: the introduction of the "News Feed," in which a now-popular Facebook feature was rolled out without sufficient privacy controls, and the Beacon advertising program, derided as an invasion of privacy by advocacy groups led by liberal organization MoveOn.org.

In all three situations, Facebook faced varying combinations of user revolt and blogger discord. The similarity between all of them is that in each case, Facebook could do all the explaining it wanted to, and yet critics wouldn't be satisfied until some kind of change was made. Considering Facebook can credit a big part of its success to gradual change and adaptability--in just a few years, it's gone from an elite college directory to the biggest hub for media-sharing on the Web--it ought to be willing to change when the catalyst is member demand rather than the next big trend in social networking.

It's not clear as to how big the alleged "member revolt" over the TOS change actually was. Tens of thousands of people joined protest groups in a matter of a few days, but for a social network with 175 million members across the world, that simply isn't that many. Recall that well over a year ago, when Facebook was significantly smaller than it is now, a fan group dedicated to putting comedian Stephen Colbert on the South Carolina presidential primary ballot hit 1 million members in under a week.

The important part isn't how many people were protesting. Rather, what's worth noting is that no matter how much Facebook tried to douse the flames--a company blog post from CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed that not only does Facebook's license not constitute ownership, that it was legally necessary to power the service's social features--vocal members and protest groups weren't satisfied if no change was made. Facebook emphasized, for example, that its license had to respect members' privacy settings, hence restricting any use of content to people in that person's "networks" or friends lists. It didn't do a thing.

Facebook has become a mainstream site. It needs to stay on top of the fact that as the site changes (or "evolves," to use the executive team's preferred term), it doesn't leave any unpleasant vestiges behind. Facebook's terms of service regarding content ownership and licensing, including the controversial change, wouldn't have been unthinkable for a small, closed-doors directory. But for a worldwide social-media site that houses billions of photographs (among other content), they just don't work.

Facebook's terms of service most likely still need extensive tweaking, since the whole "irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license" part of the document is still there and concern about it won't go away. Even Zuckerberg, in his post on Wednesday morning, acknowledged this: "As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long."

It's set up an official member feedback forum for input, working with some of the members who had spearheaded TOS reform efforts.

Facebook can credit its rise to change: being willing to change to fit trends, technology, and the times. But on the flip side, that change has to be consistent. When appropriate, changes in features need to be accompanied by changes in the rules that govern those features. And a service dedicated to the evolution of social interaction needs to be in touch with what the millions of members who enable that social interaction are saying. With three big PR kerfuffles under its belt now, perhaps the company has realized that simply justifying an unpopular, privacy-sensitive change usually isn't enough.

Luckily, Facebook has consistently shown that it listens.

[tsc3919]

If you're stupid enough to post things you dont want seen on Facebook, you get what you deserve.

[bootchmagoo]

I liked it so much better when you needed a .edu address to join.

[The_Computer_Man]

I agree completely. It has just continually gone down hill since it was opened up all the "MySpace kiddies" In fact, about 6 months ago I simply couldn't take it anymore and deleted my account....

[edtmark]

Same here, I like a number of the new additions though such as the news feed but I wish it was kept a bit more exclusive. One of the worse additions they've made has been the 'applications' function, the vast majority of them are simply tacky with only few being useful.

[Michichael]

Meh, facebook is nothing more than a bundle of privacy invading advertisements and a cover for malware. The website has no legitimate purpose in a business environment. Kinda sucks that I have to allow traffic to facebook to comment here now... not digging the facebook integration guys - get out while you still can.

And hey... since I have to allow facebook to log in, has my account info been kicked over to facebook? *ponder*

If it has, I'm going to be deleting this account ASAP. I don't want facebook having any of my info - they're far too insecure.

[carlg113]

I don't have a facebook and i can still comment. Are you sure about this?

[Grifter02]

Ya, I'm not sure what you're talking about either. I don't have Facebook, and here I am posting a comment.

[DrStrangelove23]

Unfortunately, having deleted... i take that back "deactivated" my profile yesterday prior to the rescinding of the new/old/new again TOS, my existence is still there on other profiles.

When I delete an account at that other social networking site, the one with the same initials as multiple sclerosis -- where the mentality is about the same as well -- all my comments, postings, etc. on "friends" profiles disappear. Imagine that! Why is Zuckerturd claiming that this is not possible? (btw when my spellcheck ran across 'zuckerturd' it returned 'bloodsucker'. How appropriate!)

And am I an "ex post facto" victim in the sense that since I deleted... err "deactivated" my profile before the switch back, and now my existence is in virtual limbo on their servers?

I am not and will never go back to that site, as it become the same as that "other site" which I left. I wanted to network and all I got was a bunch of crappy app requests and spam. Now I am going to avoid social media altogether, up to and including LinkedIn, as Mark Zuckerturd has ruined it for me permanently!

I should start my own network. An ANTI-social media network where NOBODY is invited!

[sanjayb]

Hell, I didn't even all this stuff was going on.

[karpenterskids]

Same here.
I'd be protesting too, if Facebook hadn't changed the TOS.

[professionaladventurer]

I am a professional photographer, I post images first for my friends and fam on FB. No FB can not have the right to those images forever. Not a huge concern, since I also believe in NOT posting anything I don't want the world to know about, but annoying. I don't want FB making money DIRECTLY by publishing one of my photographs as one of there own.

[hammer1962]

Who cares? Use it, suffer the consequences. It's not rocket science folks.

[ZetaZeta_]

The problem is people were using it according to the old TOS, and then it changed. If you suddenly disagree with it, you can't just delete your account... according to the new TOS. Understand?
Then again, they can change their TOS at any time without warning, so I guess by agreeing to original TOS you're taking the risk that it could change to a TOS like the new one.

[Paul.Muharsky]

the whole basis of thier change was to ensure that when a user quits facebook, thier posts to thier friends and groups do not have to be removed. If I were to decide that I no longer wanted to be a member of Facebook, I would generally still want my posts available ot all my various friends. Though I do think this should be a choice when canceling them membership, and should not be a blanket rule (thus eliminating the generalized TOS that they get ownership of data I have posted, and making it more of an Opt-In option) the "All corporations are evil" mentallity I just find rediculous.

[renGek]

People should realize that terms of agreement can change at any time regardless of how you feel about it. Many dot coms that went under during the dot bust days were more than happy to sell your personal information even though when they were operating normally their policy was to not sell your info. When they started selling the info, nobody stopped them. Most people didn't even know about it.

[Brad Lindroth]

The Copyright laws being as lax as they are, perhaps simply adding a copyright statement to your page/wall/picture tab or whereever, some thing along the line of :

Copyright 2009 Joe Blow

would probably trump FB's TOS anyway. Or perhaps a invisible watermark on the pics. Anyone out there a Copyright expert?

[diggyzazz]

Facebook is evil. Don't use it.

[ZetaZeta_]

So is the internet in general. Don't use it.

[AlienEric]

No big deal, if facebook doesn't appreciate the members, they can always move to other social networking websites such as http://chat.mobtwo.com/

In the end, the loser is facebook.

[Inconnux]

Mark Zuckerberg is arrogant. Only ten thousand protested in a group? lol when they changed the layout there was a couple MILLION people who joined the protest group and facebook didn't care. They only changed because of the threatened lawsuit, they could care less what the users said.

If anything facebook has consistently shown that it does NOT care. That's why I no longer have an account.

[ZetaZeta_]

They probably spent big money on the UI change. Changing a few lines of text costs the price of a lawyer for an hour, and changing it back is as easy as copy-paste.

[Inconnux]

sure they spent a lot to change the UI, without any user feedback and all they needed to do was make it an OPTION to move over to the new interface... Kind of reminds me of Microsoft... Created Vista and is trying to force people to use it

[walk2k]

I've never used myfacebook/etc etc but I don't see the big tragedy here.

Basically this "content" people are so concerned about protecting consists of 1 of 2 things:

1. teenagers posting pictures of themselves in the bathroom mirror
2. short "blog" entries like "had a roast beef sandwich for lunch today"

Oh noes, can't have the world knowing that!

[Joe_Knapp]

I find it amusing to see geeks frothing at the mouth over rights to their LOLcat pictures being usurped, and on the same people other hand get all bent out of shape over New Zealand (and others) asserting copyright laws and DRM. They don't see the disconnect. I think the only common point is that they are at the center of the universe in each case.

[jonny_f]

The TOC language is standard all over the web, particularly on sites with blogs and feedback boards.
THIS CNET SITE HAS VERY SIMILAR TERMS: click at bottom of page and read them. It's all about freedom to practice, so do not expect it to change soon. If you don't like it, don't use it, but please stop complaining.

FROM CNET's TOC "You hereby grant us, our affiliates, and our partners a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, nonexclusive, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute, and publish Your Content and subsequent versions of Your Content for the purposes of (i) displaying Your Content on our sites, (ii) distributing Your Content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it, and/or (iii) storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge. This license shall apply to the distribution and the storage of Your Content in any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed."

[RompStar_420]

Face Book created by a bunch of Jills, stay away from that crap, evil.

[soluto]

Here's my cartoon take on Facebook's behavior

http://www.pcdisorder.com/2009/02/facebooks-zuckerberg-unbound.html

[amtower]

Croline - great stuff ! Keep it up.

[t8]

Hmmm that is a worry.

Never thought that Facebook could be dangerous.

[HighwayHome]

If these shenanigans don't tell you what that site is about, then nothing will.