209.85.129.132 — With today?s outrage over Facebook?s newly altered Terms of Service at its peak, I figured I?d do a quick comparison of their terms of service as regards user-uploaded content to the terms specified by other social networking sites, just to see if said outrage is fully justified. It looks as though the finger-pointing at the Bush robots.txt file wa
Feb 16, 2009 View in Crawl 4
durrokFeb 18, 2009
Interesting read and nice job linking the google cache version of the site instead of the actual web server, costing that individual tons of money in bandwidth and bringing their site down. If it was the owner of the site who submitted it, smart play.
gr00Feb 18, 2009
Loosing is for Loosers :)
Closed AccountFeb 18, 2009
I wouldn't give a s**t because I don't go to stupid websites like that :/
Closed AccountFeb 18, 2009
Actually, when I logged on they changed the ToS back to the original.
Closed AccountFeb 18, 2009
Right , i will also remove them from my share button.
assprophetFeb 18, 2009
I'm a web application designer and I can vouch that granting an unlimited license to Facebook is the only reasonable way to approach user uploaded data, even though at first it may seem *evil* to non-techies.It's crazy what Facebook (or any other social media web application) would have to do to allow people to retain ownership of their data. People either have to accept a default license for any data they publish, or Facebook would have to set up some kind of license management system so that users could control how every photo, note, video, etc was handled. Either way to function as it is designed to Facebook can only support a very liberal usage license. Because if they granted stricter ownership, facebook would would then have to enforce the terms of the license, through some kind of DRM or whatever. This would cost a great deal to implement and maintain, and most users wouldn't benefit from it anyway.Beyond that, if a user removed their account, Facebook would have to run through their huge database and delete every photo, video, note, as well as any comment that other users may have added to those items. They would also have to remove the news feed references, or tag relationships to any of those items as well. This could clearly be quite disruptive for anyone who was a Facebook friend of that user, not to mention the immense load that would put on their servers and the potential for corrupt data and broken links.That's why there's not any real room for flexibility in Facebook's data license policy, and you are absolutely right, that people should only share what they're willing to give to the public.