We posted earlier about the recent change in Facebook’s terms of service which clearly stated that Facebook were able to do with as they wish with any content you uploaded to the site. This caused a great deal of controversy and concern, so much so that Facebook CEO and Founder Mark Zuckerberg took the time to write an official post on the matter.
We have pasted the post in its entirety below.
A couple of weeks ago, we updated our terms of use to clarify a few points for our users. A number of people have raised questions about our changes, so I’d like to address those here. I’ll also take the opportunity to explain how we think about people’s information.
Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with. When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they’ve asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn’t help people share that information.
One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever. When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created—one in the person’s sent messages box and the other in their friend’s inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear.
In reality, we wouldn’t share your information in a way you wouldn’t want. The trust you place in us as a safe place to share information is the most important part of what makes Facebook work. Our goal is to build great products and to communicate clearly to help people share more information in this trusted environment.
We still have work to do to communicate more clearly about these issues, and our terms are one example of this. Our philosophy that people own their information and control who they share it with has remained constant. A lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective of the rights we need to provide this service to you. Over time we will continue to clarify our positions and make the terms simpler.
Still, the interesting thing about this change in our terms is that it highlights the importance of these issues and their complexity. People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them—like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on—to other services and grant those services access to those people’s information. These two positions are at odds with each other. 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.
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.















Sounds like he’s trying to get away with something on a technicality…
If your not want to do it why do you put it in the terms?
Because it won’t work otherwise?
Google lets you set the license type yourself in picasa… don’t be evil Facebook!
Facebook and Twitter are closed source content silos that do not allow you to control the content that you create.
One of the reasons for this is obvious. Selling Member created content is one of the only ways that they can generate revenue. If members actually controlled and owned the content they created,then members would have the ability to demand transparency from Facebook when it came to selling or sharing their content.
This is PR not concern.
I think if they really mean that they respect user’s privacy, then they need to revise their legal terms. Period. You can’t have a legal agreement that says one thing and a company statement that says another. I can’t feel comfortable posting my family photos with my privacy settings to “only friends” if facebook has the legal right to take those photos and do whatever they like with them.
buuuuuuh
Hi facebook,
Is a good idea to set up auction like eBay for your users?
Or maybe a partnership with eBay.
You have millions of people around. You’ll help the economy helping small businesses.
“On face value”, this response confirms the abuse of the “locked-in” users.
Quite an achievement to talk jarjarjar, dwell on irrelevant complexities, talk consistent vague, openended, inactive and non-binding and quote many “thinking” into a 550 word bullshit poem….
Anyway, bottom line bet: Will Facebook users stay now or not?
It makes no sense that Facebook would risk messing up a good thing by edging in on people’s intellectual property. They had people’s trust and then they go and risk losing it; not smart.
i would like to know WHY did you close me down i have never abused my terms i have only 32 friends
i can not log in to my facebook
and i would like to know why you did this:0(
Am inspired of ur work sir realy, but seriously we’re in nid of facebook cops. we’v got bad people causing enviromental degradation in facebook society.