Quick thoughts on the Facebook TOS insanity
Some quick thoughts, Twitter-style.
1) If you don’t want your information owned, by Facebook or anyone else, DON’T FREAKING PUT IT ON THE INTERNETS.
2) You get a hot photo taken of you. You put it up on the Internet. Good luck “controlling your brand” once it’s online. If it’s really hot, inmates are using it as prison currency before the end of the evening. You think you have ANY semblance of privacy once you post something? You’re dreaming. It ain’t just Facebook. They just happened to put it into print.
3) 99.99999% of Facebook users ARE NOT POSTING ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY INTERESTING ENOUGH FOR FACEBOOK TO CARE ABOUT, much less use in an ad or commercial.
4) Privacy died 30 years ago. Get the hell over it already.
5) The best we can hope for is to control our privacy, and maintain some level of control over what content we produce and own. Want to own your content? Post it on another site, or start your own. Crying because the version of Facebook you started doesn’t have any users, so you can’t get the same reach you can with Zuck’s 170 million pairs of eyeballs? Suck it up, cupcake, and know that you might have to fight for it if it becomes mega-popular, and yet still, the chances of that happening are virtually nill.
6) Hate the game, not the player: What Facebook has done is NO different than what ANY website has done, including AOL back in 1995. They’ve just voiced it, and a bunch of bitchy little bloggers decided to make a case out of it. This isn’t new. Get over it.
And my rant endeth.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I’ve kept my kids’ pictures off Facebook from the beginning because I know once it’s posted online, it’s out of my hands. And some things are too precious, such as my kids’ safety.
The new changes don’t faze me much — I assumed Facebook privacy/ rights are about nil anyway.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Good points, blunt and keeping it real. However Facebook’s new blog today reverted back to the old TOS and it seems the voices of millions did make Mark crumble. They are working on new Terms with the help of the Facebook users he pointed out today.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Thank you for finding a way to incorporate a version of “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” Love it!! :)
I think you’re right. And, if you listen to FB’s explanation for why they tried to do this, it sort of makes some sense. Bottom line: Nothing is secret. Nothing is private. If you post something online, just realize that you’re going to lose control. It’s that simple — like it or not.
Heather (@prtini)
February 18th, 2009 at 9:21 am
I agree Peter. Evidently we have to tell adults what we’ve been telling our kids since they started using the Internet…It’s a permanent record, so be very selective in what you post!!!
February 18th, 2009 at 9:23 am
It seems that the issue is not privacy, but the idea that they can/could/might take your content and use and/or gain from it commercially in the future. That is completely different than whining about your privacy…if that was the only issue, I would agree with you. The idea that they could take a picture of your family and use it for one of those side banner ads for plastic surgery, or worse, offends me. Apparently it offends a lot of people.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:23 am
LOL! I might not have said it that way, but you’re totally on target, Peter. Anything — and I mean anything — that you let out of the house is public. Period. And there’s probably a lot that goes on inside the house that can’t be protected either. I wonder why people in the United States believe privacy still exists in our world.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Unfortunately, your rant #2, #5 and #6 failed the Twitter 140-char limit =/
Great post tho…
I concur!
February 18th, 2009 at 9:25 am
I couldn’t agree more with you Peter. Most sites out there have had similar types of TOS for a long time. It just amazes me how few people actually read them when they sign up for things.
All of your points are valid and to the point. Thank you for saying what I’ve been trying to tell people. I’ll just point them here! *laugh*
February 18th, 2009 at 9:26 am
That’s not the point I took from Facebook TOS. In this time of openness and transparency in social media, Facebook made a major change without warning. This caused the community to question their intentions and if they care about user experience as representatives have been saying. Ultimately Facebook did the right thing, listened to its community and reverted to the previous TOS.
I say hate the player and love the game. Just because the game allows you to do something, it doesn’t mean you should. You either have a working philosophy or you allow the creation of your soul to fall to chance (paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson).
February 18th, 2009 at 9:28 am
But there’s a difference between my hot photos being used as prison currency (I’d be flattered) and facebook maintaining a perpetual license over anything and everything I (or anyone else) post until the end of time regardless of whether I (or anyone) choose to continue to participate in their network.
I’m not so naive to think that FB is going to choose my profile shot from 127 million to use for their next ad campaign, but I know quite a few photographers who maintain professional profiles that include some valuable materials. If FB maintains perpetual license than that potentially represents lost revenue. 99% of FB users may not have anything worth using, but that remaining percent does…and photos only represent the tip of the creative iceberg.
There are no illusions of privacy anymore—look at the poor bastard who got his spot blown by FedEx for dissing Memphis. But other social networking sites, while holding some license over the materials posted therein, recognize that once someone leaves the network and deletes their account then those materials are no longer licensed by said network. The issue here seems to perpetuity, not privacy, and I would be wary of describing people serving as watchdogs for the rest of us poor saps as “bitchy little bloggers.”
February 18th, 2009 at 9:31 am
@prodgers: That goes back to point five. If you don’t want Facebook owning your professional photos, have a link to your OWN site. By using your Facebook’s site, their servers, their software, you’re agreeing to whatever they tell you to do.
Easiest solution in the world: “Welcome to my Facebook page. To see my professional photos, please visit http://www.mysite.com. Done. Saying “Hi Facebook, I’ll use all your services,” in my opinion, gives them the right to do with it what they want.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:36 am
My opposition to the TOS was this:
1) They made huge, sweeping changes without a warning – yes, they have the right to, but no, they shouldn’t have. Many businesses will warn you ahead of time when their TOS is about to change.
2) They said that they own all your content in perpetuity, without restriction. Granted, they’re not likely to use anything of yours, but what if they decide to use a picture of me and my family in an ad without my permission? I’m not cool with that. This is where most people were upset, especially because they had no warning and no voice in the matter (granted, most times you have no voice in the matter – perhaps that’s about to change).
I don’t argue the privacy point. You put it on the net, it’s there, and you’ve lost your privacy. I think that internet companies are under a whole lot more scrutiny than other businesses, but are also more likely to use your content in ways that are less than desirable, which is why people put up a huge stink about things like this. I just think that companies and their lawyers need to take a deeper look at the language they use going forward as users become more savvy to the jargon.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I agree with Keli and Michael; privacy is not the only issue. On that most of us agree; published = public.
But a pic in a profile or a photo gallery is not the same thing as having it endorsing some product or cause, or strategically located under “WANTED for child molestation”.
And I was surprised to read you say that the fact that someone else had previously done something qualifies as a moral justification.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:39 am
This isn’t an issue of whether your pictures or words are free for the world (or Facebook) to peruse, it’s a matter of whether someone can capitalize off of your Intellectual Property. They can’t. It’s illegal. See http://www.copyright.gov for the details. For me, this was never an issue of whether others can ’see’ anything (yes, protect your children’s images ALWAYS), but whether a 3rd party can ‘capitalize’ (make money) from your ideas. They can’t. Of course they can ‘try’ but it’s illegal. Even for FB. And that’s why they dropped their gloves. They’d have been laughed out of any court in the country if they tried to own IP.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Touche Mr. Shankman, however, if users are already engaged in their service when they change their TOS unannounced, then using a separate site is out of the question. They essentially annexed everything on the site…Yes, technically they have the right to make the rules since it’s their game, however, that doesn’t mean they have to function in a manner contrary to the general interest of the user base.
However, since they announced their reverting to their old TOS, this is all null and void. The world is still a decent place.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I understand about the privacy issue and that once its posted, its fair game. I just want the right to delete the content if I want to…that’s all.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:41 am
@jim, @brian, @chris – IT’S THEIR SITE!! That’s what this really comes down to! Don’t want people to have the power to use the stuff you upload? Start your own site, on your own servers! You’ll give up the 170mm pairs of eyeballs, but you’ll be able to 100% control the content. (at least you think you will…)
But that’s the only way you’ll be able to do it. We’d better accept that now. It’s not going to change.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:51 am
You make some great points. I’m afraid that a lot of people don’t realize that once you upload something, or even email something — it’s GONE. It can be copied and shared forever. Now, if someone is taking your artwork or writing and passing it off as their own or selling it, you probably have a case against them. But if it’s online, it sure makes that more likely to happen.
And when I hear someone (especially a young person) say that someone is “spying” on their Facebook or MySpace page, I just want to shake them! It’s out there. You published it! Someone looking at it isn’t “spying,” even if you don’t like that person.
Internet = public. Doesn’t mean you can get away with plagiarism, but if you say/do it on the internet, you are saying/doing it in public.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:55 am
@Peter – No I get it. I know it’s their site, and they can do what they want. I think it’s more a matter of principle. The more times users get screwed over by large companies, and the more people feel like they have a voice to fight back, the more people WILL fight back.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Peter, you are absolutely right. Ever since you spoke to Richmond and made a similar point I’ve been emphasizing to our clients (especially the business folks doing Pages on FB and other SM stuff) that these are PUBLIC forums and you don’t own them. FB can cut you off for any number of reasons that aren’t even being discussed in the latest TOS flap. We all need ot invest broadly in social networks, but always reinvest back in our own websites where we control the content and its usage. Thanks for the great points, as always.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:00 am
@Chris sorry to be butting in but here’s a thought.. Facebook isn’t screwing over people aren’t they? They’re simply stating that they can. They’re saying that if you want to use their services, then this is the price you have to pay. Nothing in this world is free!
But then again like @prodgers brought up.. they should’ve used common sense and not sneakily tweak that TOS
February 18th, 2009 at 10:01 am
As others have pointed out, this is not about privacy, it’s about ownership of intellectual property. The reason I blog and import my blog into FB is for the OPPOSITE of privacy — I’m looking for exposure! But I want credit for what I’ve written, because it’s mine; I’m not OK with some dude claiming ownership of my ideas/writing. I’m probably in that 99%, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a right to own my own crap.
I see your point that “it’s their site.” If I had signed up for the site under those TOS, then yes, I would not have a right to complain about it. BUT I DIDN’T. I signed up under the old TOS, and FB didn’t ask me about the change in TOS or even tell me about it (my credit card company at least has the decency to tell me about it — and that’s a credit card company, when have they been know to be “ethical”?) If they were going to make this change, then they needed to let the users know and give them a chance to delete their accounts/remove their content before putting the new TOS into effect.
Sure, “it’s their site.” Nobody’s saying it isn’t; what we’re saying is they can’t change the rules on us mid-game, without giving us an out. Because “it’s MY stuff.”
February 18th, 2009 at 10:10 am
@peter – i get it. but i also know that if I’m ‘hired’ by an agency to write a headline (*for example*), that the agency owns it enough to sell to their client because they ‘paid’ me for it. However, it also means that I still own the IP – neither the agency nor their client can transfer the IP and ‘own’ it. They don’t. They can’t. It’s impossible. That being said, if FB is allowing me to upload something to their servers, AND they’re charging their advertisers (which they do) as a means to capitalize on their portal AND they’re not paying me for a headline AND they have TOS that says they ‘own’ the right to redistribute anything anyone puts on there – it is illegal. It can’t be done. And they know it. That’s why they softened their stance – http://www.copyright.gov
February 18th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Yes it’s their site.. and they can do what they want.
The question is, should they? Do they have any moral or legal requirement to handle all that power with care? Should it be OK if they’re “screwing over people” just because “IT’S THEIR SITE!! “
February 18th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Yep, some people are just dumb enough to believe in Privacy Policies…oh well.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I agree, once you post something to the Internet it has a life of its own. The new terminology didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know already. Thank you Peter for cutting through all of this privacy paranoia! I do understand the anger of authors, however. Their issue is about more than vacation photos. Easy solution though- post your content to your own Website, and share the link on Facebook as opposed to actually uploading it to the network.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:45 am
First, let me say that I ascribe to the maxim that stuff on the Internet, and especially on a proprietary network like Facebook, should be considered public and can’t be “controlled.”
More concerning to me is not that Facebook would “own” someone’s creative, there are copyright laws for that, as was mentioned above. If you put it on the FB site, they do need a license to “show” it to those that “friend” you and protect themselves from a lawsuit.
My concern is more about how advertisers and Facebook are using your profile pic and the groups you are in to sell their stuff. Sorry @progers, Facebook (or at least their advertisers) IS using your profile picture for an ad.
As an example, I love WeSeed, but just noticed yesterday that some of my friends profile pics were pulled into ads on my sidebar as a quasi endorsement of the group (I posted a sample of what this looks like yesterday). All of this without their knowledge. Now, one could say this is the same as my news feed saying I became a fan of a group, but I say this takes it a step further. It certainly makes me think very hard about the groups that I join on Facebook. While at one time I might have joined a group for fun or to lurk, I now have to be concerned that joining instantly implies endorsement.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Amen, Peter.
I think I would feel differently about this argument if Facebook was a paid service. I’d perhaps take the outcry over “not warning us” or “not taking our opinions into consideration” more seriously. But, as it is, Facebook is a free site with free services. The tradeoff, as you point out, is that if and when you use all their free stuff you have to do it on THEIR terms. Terms that, just like any other terms, can change at any time without warning.
Now, certainly, Facebook doesn’t have all the power here. They are providing a free service, but in exchange for our eyeballs they get to make money from advertisers. So it behooves them to listen to their audience when they freak out, or risk losing the community they worked so hard to build and upon which their revenue model rests. So, I think they made the right decision in listening, and responding, to the outcry. But the outcry itself is pretty damn hilarious. We all blindly sign up for free services without reading that service’s terms and then we blame them for having terms we don’t like.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:14 am
[...] I also agree that if you really want privacy, then don’t put anything on the internets, like Shankman says. Having said that, I think that you should have a reasonable expectation to control what [...]
February 18th, 2009 at 11:15 am
I take issue with the idea that only the company has the right to set the rules of the game. As a significant stakeholder, the users have a right to voice their displeasure with FB’s TOS. If FB thinks that the costs are too high to maintain their policy and perhaps open an opportunity to its competitor, it will change and respond to their publics. They have done just that. But, such pro-industry rantings that “privacy died 30 years ago” and we should just suck it up, hides the fact that with enough action we can change the rules of the game. I think we should all yell, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it anymore.”
February 18th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Peter, you make excellent points (made some of the same myself yesterday – http://tinyurl.com/bpc3eb ). Zuckerberg’s explanation and rollback today was interesting – but he made it clear that the TOS will change. I do think he’s smart to invite input from users. But a lot of the panic I’ve seen among some users is just that – unthinking panic. As you (and many others) say, the privacy train left the station a long time ago.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Well done, Peter.
However, getting your own site and paying for it, is not going to protect you.
People steal your material, no matter where in the WWW it is. They even steal blatantly from Dow Jones, Chicago Tribune, etc. , stripping the articles of the authors’ names and just plopping the whole content into their blogs. Many of them are using free Blogspot sites.
Looking at Blogspot’s (Google’s) rules to file a complaint, they want you to jump through hoops and fax or mail them your complaint, with copies of documentation to prove you own it.
Jim @smashadv ’s comment about copyright protection being automatic, and Facebook’s contract being illegal is incorrect. When you sign away your rights, by accepting the terms of the site use, you HAVE signed away your right to prevent that site from using your materials. While they may not own exclusive rights to your materials, they do own the right to use it any way their contract says they can. That’s why I read the site terms so carefully – and don’t use Google Groups for my paid classes, for instance.
If you don’t want something copied or stolen, don’t put it online.
Having it published on paper makes it harder for plagiarists, since they don’t like having to retype the whole article. But, it also severely limits your exposure and your following. You decide what limits you want on your brand, and your fame.
I’ll just keep plugging along, and fight windmills now and then, protecting my work. You too?
Best wishes
Eva
February 18th, 2009 at 11:43 am
It was my understanding from a seminar this morning that the kerfuffle was over nothing–that Facebook didn’t actually claim to own all content in perpetuity, but that the way they worded it was intended to protect users from other people stealing the information to use for THEIR own purposes and claiming they had the rights to.
But I still agree with the general points above.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Hey Peter, great post and so bang on. The internet is forever, period, end of story (…actually beginning).
It’s not about should ‘they’ have a right or that its their site because pretty much all content is being indexed and a large amount is being re-purposed elsewhere. I saw on YouTube yesterday that one of my blog posts was being used by some site that’s a vehicle for affiliate revenue.
Post it and ‘fer’gettaboutit’.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Couldn’t agree more. If you post ANYTHING on the Internet, it’s_not_yours_anymore.
This is not much different than signing a photographers model release form. If I like what I shot, and want to use it in my advert, I will.
I wonder how many studios roll a standard release out in their contract, and expect the customer to read it?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:58 am
All your base are belong to us!
February 18th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Thank you for posting this.
I laughed hard when everyone got their knickers in a knot over the “new” TOS.
Its not new. Facebook has ALWAYS owned your information.
Even after you delete the account, they’ve owned it in the archives.
The only thing that is NEW, is they put it in simple words so more facebook users would know about it and understand it.
I couldnt agree more Peter, Suck it up and get over it, or simply stop posting things you don’t want the rest of the world to see….. It’s F-O-R-E-V-E-R!
February 18th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I completely agree with all of this. Don’t post things you don’t want other people to see. I mean, common sense…right?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Privacy and Internet DO NOT GO HAND IN HAND. Yes there are some places where data appears to be safe, but when that envelope arrives from the bank and says “Here’s your new credit card because your other number was lost by us and compromised” you get a wake up call that nothing is private in this world. Not even what you shred as it can be reassembled by certain machines that they don’t talk about in certain places.
Don’t want it used by someone, don’t want it seen by anyone…don’t even imagine it because soon…they’ll tap into your thoughts as well and those will no longer be private.
Facebook basically shot itself in the foot by making a big deal about this. Sort of like the “WE WON” by the Democrats. Facebook has a Terms of Service agreement that you ’sign’ when you login for the first time. If you don’t like it…don’t have an account there. Same as with the bank, your online video account, any place you put your name and email address, etc.
What this does show though is how the Net has changed the way that people speak up. Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, everyone has an opinion and a large circle of ‘friends’ that they may or may not have met and when some of us speak, others listen and that’s a beautiful thing.
Thanks Peter for voicing.
Michael Murdock
February 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
[...] TECH FRAGMENTS – bringing together bits and bytes wrote an interesting post today on Quick thoughts on the Facebook TOS insanity | The Home of Peter…Here’s a quick excerpt…http://shankman.com/quick-thoughts-on-t… [...]
February 18th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
“3) 99.99999% of Facebook users ARE NOT POSTING ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY INTERESTING ENOUGH FOR FACEBOOK TO CARE ABOUT, much less use in an ad or commercial.”
Done and done. However, I would like to thank the 32 million Facebook users who solely are responsible for the lowering the price of gas, because “it wasn’t fair.” If Facebook has its way, prices will be start fluctuating based on supply and demand!
February 18th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
[...] Peter Shankman wrote an interesting post today on Quick thoughts on the Facebook TOS insanity | The Home of Peter …Here’s a quick excerptPeter Shankman is an Entrepreneur, an Adventurist, and the CEO of The Geek Factory, a PR and Marketing boutique firm in New York City. [...]
February 18th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Re facebook…folks never THINK about what they are posting. Remembering… we were hiring, lots of applicants … check all their email addresses out on Facebook. oooooooooops. some folks didn’t get called for interviews. Their resumes were great…but I don’t need someone who talks about how wasted they got last night.
You never know who’s reading! ;)
February 19th, 2009 at 12:15 am
[...] There is no Privacy? but Revenue sharing issues? [...]
February 19th, 2009 at 8:59 am
[...] Know how some investors make money by betting on bad things to happen? You can hedge your bets too, and consider using your personal Facebook profile in whole or in part as a public relations platform. Not only can this help you market yourself, but it also serves to pre-empt social networks who may or may not use your information in a public manner. (This sentiment was echoed by Peter Shankman a day ago). [...]
February 19th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Peter,
With all due respect and your number four anti-privacy rant is misplaced. A great bunch of attorneys are trying to make sure our Constitutionally protected privacy rights are not gone. Also, my guess is you are not parent…or would be reading a family law website and very concerned with legislators from all states.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Keli Whidden wrote:
“It seems that the issue is not privacy, but the idea that they can/could/might take your content and use and/or gain from it commercially in the future. That is completely different than whining about your privacy…if that was the only issue, I would agree with you.”
…ditto…
And BTW- Everything I do falls into the other .000001% of Facebook users… ;-)
February 20th, 2009 at 2:07 am
[...] UP. To share. To collaborate. Good will come… not just advertisements. Peter Shankman also thinks you should open up, but asks with more passion… or less patience, you be the [...]
February 20th, 2009 at 9:36 am
The internet has never really been about privacy. There just is no privacy. The issue with Facebook is predatory management of content. Too lazy to get their own content, they are stealing it from their users which perpetuates the false, and illegal, notion that if it’s on the internet, it is free to use with out regard to copyright laws. There is no good reason for Facebook to be doing what they are doing.
March 21st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
[...] encontrar múltiples blogs hablando al respecto, y si bien personas como Peter Shankman dan a entender que uno esta expuesto a que su información se propague en Internet, aun así uno [...]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
[...] is private. As Peter Shankman likes to point out, “privacy died 30 years ago.” With cameras on cell phones, video recorders and [...]
August 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I really think the ones who have the most problems with facebook are the kids. Most people, with the exception of the childlike adults, have no problem editing out information that should not be shared.
Thanks for the psot
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
[...] encontrar múltiples blogs hablando al respecto, y si bien personas como Peter Shankman dan a entender que uno esta expuesto a que su información se propague en Internet, aun así uno [...]
February 10th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
[...] UP. To share. To collaborate. Good will come… not just advertisements. Peter Shankman also thinks you should open up, but asks with more passion… or less patience, you be the [...]