Comments on: Facebook backs down on privacy terms

The CEO of the social-networking service says in a blog post that the company would return for now to its previous privacy policy.

[PhaseDMA]

"Blogger Leo Laporte". Ha! That's a boarder line offensive description. Please show a bit more respect to one of the biggest, and most respected technology analysts around.

[jture]

Umm, I think you mean "border line" ... a "boarder" is not even close to being a "border"!

[sevvn]

"Borderline" would be better yet.

[sweaty_taco]

I'm more concerned about the 216 messages in your inbox.

[z4ckdabeast]

amen brother. what's the point of facebook if you don't even look at your messages?

[Harrison912]

I'm typically on FaceBook to socially market my safety and security web site as well as raise awareness for it's products so I'm not real concerned about the content I have posted on FaceBook but I know my potential web site visitors are. I'm sure FaceBook will get it right and all will be confortable with the end result.

[alexg88]

There's really no reason for all the ******** and moaning... People who don't like the site shouldn't have created an account in the first place... Out of the 175+ million people on Facebook, I wonder how many actually read through the OLD privacy terms to begin with, because I know I sure as hell didn't. Another thing, why is it such a big deal that Facebook wouldn't delete an inbox message to a friend? Are you ending your friendship with that person when you delete your account? Did you send them your social security number, or credit card information? I just can't see why that would hold any weight in this argument. Also, anyone who thinks their information/pictures/wall posts are THAT great that Facebook would want to sell them, please remember people outside of your friends list couldn't care less. Just do us all a favor, quit ******** and go back to Myspace.

[hypermark]

While perception is reality, and the emotional response suggests that Facebook needs to do a better job of being consultative with its community versus delivering material edicts from on high, the truth is that this is much ado about nothing.

We create a "snail trail" when we plug into communities online, that snail trail becomes substrate that interconnects with other users and discussion threads.

It's just not reasonable to expect that you can rip that out, creating virtual potholes in the communal space.

Also, why do we begrudge Facebook as nefarious for wanting to monetize these snail trails when we happily accept Google monetizing our traversals, web pages, images and the like? It?s just silly, in my opinion.

Check out:

Why Facebook?s Terms of Service Change is Much Ado About Nothing.
(http://bit.ly/xxE4d)

For more fodder on this one.

Mark

[QASIMARA]

People would create and maintain their own Web sites and rent space from an ISP if they wanted total ownership over what appears there. They either are too lazy or not interested to learn how to program a site or they like the social networking tools Facebook has to offer. That being said, why can't Facebook offer clearer terms about who owns the intellectual property of uploaded material?
As with many pursuits, once the law gets involved, it gets messy and the groove is gone.

[mn1044]

While I agree a lot of people are complaining about a bunch of nothing, I still have to give kudos to Facebook for taking the initiative to do something about it.

[tikoro]

Facebook didn't back down. Sensationalize headlines much? They reverted back because much of the new wording (as well as quite a bit of the old) is viewed as esoteric and too difficult for the every day person to comprehend.

Thus, rather than go forward to an even more unclear version of the TOS, they reverted back to the previous while they work on a better revision. Same thing software companies will do if they release a horrible release, they will yank it until it is fixed. (Ok, maybe not all software companies, but the responsible ones do).

That being said, same thing I posted on Facebook. If you don't want someone to see something, don't post it on the net. Just normal common sense. If you don't want to be perceived as an idiot. Don't act like an idiot where other people can perceive it.

[Yardobe]

...if you put anything on the net...it becomes Free for anyone else to use...sad,but oh so true!

[jfalsken]

Does people who do not feel those should be concerned over improper use or exploiting and the selling of your information. More than likely are some of people who steal images and other information from other users. There is a group of professionals who use the site to promote there work and count heavily on the social network to gain exposure for their art. At times, Artist sell their work by allowing Facebook to use freely without consent or permission is a violation to copyright laws and it takes money away from people who earn a living selling their art. Who is going to buy the art if they can get it for free on Facebook?
This is improper policy to take when dealing with your lively hood and your sweat that goes into your work. Many use These social sites to sell their work, promote themselves to gain further work by allowing for timely contact in their business. To think, Facebook and others own your work without permission or consent and places themselves above copyright law is criminal. Work stolen can never be recovered or resold and decreases the value of an artist's hard work. Not everyone uses Social sites to post their latest drunken adventure, some see it as a tool for business new and old.
Posting quality work and it is these images Social site sell for profit. Your drunken images are all blurry and are worth nothing to anyone, but just your drunken friends to laugh at you with. Unless you are someone famous then count the images will be sold to the tabloids for a lot more money then what your next drunken experience will cost. All with full rights to sell and resell without your knowledge, permission or consent and no legal means to recover damages.

The junk e-mail or spam mail comes from these social sites selling off your information to all who wants it, leaving you with no recourse to stop it. What happens when criminals gain access to your life all your files, posts, images, data., you in turn lose your life! Then they go after your friends life, when they have taken it all away from you. They will even take control over all your accounts. Under the policy of the social networks you do not have legally a leg to stand on, in the end it will cost you more than money it will cost you your life or life's work!
I decided to drop all accounts at the social networks and it will cost me exposure and other's enjoyment seeing my work, because it cost me to much to give it all away for free. Unlike you, I have something of value in my life and I am unwilling to give it all away. I take theft seriously and this policy is a criminal act and I can't support Criminals, maybe you can!

[alexg88]

"Many use These social sites to sell their work, promote themselves to gain further work by allowing for timely contact in their business." Many? I'm sorry, but an actual business owner is not going to use Facebook as their primary form of advertising. If I saw an ad for a photography business that had a link to their Facebook, I would be turned away, because it's just not professional. Although, I must admit, if the picture is posted on the internet at all, there's a way of getting it. An actual business is going to pay for a website that would look decent and allow the customer to buy from it.
Facebook has never sold my e-mail to other websites, and I don't know anyone who has gotten spam linked to Facebook either. Anyone who is willing to throw their LIFE onto a social networking site probably shouldn't have an account. Facebook is not a criminal, and I will continue using it as the social networking site it was made for.