After the uproar that ensued when Facebook tried to change its terms of service a couple weeks ago, along with its subsequent backpedaling and public assurances that users own their data, the company is trying a different tack. It is inviting users to comment and contribute on proposed changes to its terms of service.
Facebook has posted a proposed set of Facebook Principles (reprinted below) and proposed Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Members can discuss these proposals in two groups dedicated to each set of statements (here and here, respectively).
During a conference call, CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained:
Today we are going to talk about a set of documents that will be the governing documents of Facebook from here on. . . . We feel this is fairly unprecedented, giving users this much involvement into the process.
He also reiterated:
We do not own user data, they own their data. We never intended to give that impression and we feel bad that we did.
Here are the statements:
The Facebook Principles
We are building Facebook to make the world more open and transparent, which we believe will create greater understanding and connection. Facebook promotes openness and transparency by giving individuals greater power to share and connect, and certain principles guide Facebook in pursuing these goals. Achieving these principles should be constrained only by limitations of law, technology, and evolving social norms. We therefore establish these Principles as the foundation of the rights and responsibilities of those within the Facebook Service.
1. Freedom to Share and Connect
People should have the freedom to share whatever information they want, in any medium and any format, and have the right to connect online with anyone – any person, organization or service – as long as they both consent to the connection.
2. Ownership and Control of Information
People should own their information. They should have the freedom to share it with anyone they want and take it with them anywhere they want, including removing it from the Facebook Service. People should have the freedom to decide with whom they will share their information, and to set privacy controls to protect those choices. Those controls, however, are not capable of limiting how those who have received information may use it, particularly outside the Facebook Service.
3. Free Flow of Information
People should have the freedom to access all of the information made available to them by others. People should also have practical tools that make it easy, quick, and efficient to share and access this information.
4. Fundamental Equality
Every Person – whether individual, advertiser, developer, organization, or other entity – should have representation and access to distribution and information within the Facebook Service, regardless of the Person’s primary activity. There should be a single set of principles, rights, and responsibilities that should apply to all People using the Facebook Service.
5. Social Value
People should have the freedom to build trust and reputation through their identity and connections, and should not have their presence on the Facebook Service removed for reasons other than those described in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.
6. Open Platforms and Standards
People should have programmatic interfaces for sharing and accessing the information available to them. The specifications for these interfaces should be published and made available and accessible to everyone.
7. Fundamental Service
People should be able to use Facebook for free to establish a presence, connect with others, and share information with them. Every Person should be able to use the Facebook Service regardless of his or her level of participation or contribution.
8. Common Welfare
The rights and responsibilities of Facebook and the People that use it should be described in a Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which should not be inconsistent with these Principles.
9. Transparent Process
Facebook should publicly make available information about its purpose, plans, policies, and operations. Facebook should have a town hall process of notice and comment and a system of voting to encourage input and discourse on amendments to these Principles or to the Rights and Responsibilities.
10. One World
The Facebook Service should transcend geographic and national boundaries and be available to everyone in the world.
Great job Facebook! The Principles are great!
hmmm… an open way of taking from open content. interesting.
“are not capable of limiting how those who have received information may use it”
FACEBOOK ITSELF SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION…THEY ARE SIMPLY A CARRIER.
THE MAILMAN DOESN’T READ YOUR MAIL LET ALONE CAPITALIZE ON IT.
The whole bit, “Those controls, however, are not capable of limiting how those who have received information may use it, particularly outside the Facebook Service.” worries me. I smell a scam in the form of “oh no, so and so stole some pictures from facebook and used them for money.” Sounds like an opening connected to their revised TOS where they own and can do whatever they want w/ our content more so than a CYA situation to me.
A lucrative business would be to legally save all incriminating or embarrasing data / quotes / photos you can and sit on it until people run for office…
We never intended to give that impression and we feel bad that we did.
Why do they persist in non-apologies? Either the TOS gave them the rights that they were criticized for, or it didn’t. There’s no “impression” here, the TOS said something. What was it?
And yes, if they’re going to claim the mantle of openness and transparency then they have to answer for this stuff. It’s insane to treat those concepts as marketroid buzzcrap and they deserve every demand for information if they’re going to claim openness and transparency. Any perception of closure or hiding should absolutely engender criticism.
Yes, there was impression, go and read what the TOS said, then what people complained about, what the misconceptions were and why it shows how many total retards there are on this planet.
What you’re illustrating here is exactly what I’m talking about. There’s endless illustration of what the “impressions” of the TOS were, yet none providing any counter-interpretation. Given the lack of support of those TOS terms, I have to conclude that the prevalent interpretations are the correct ones.
Translation: put up or shut up, and don’t blame people for noticing that you aren’t putting up.
You are right. They either gave themselves enormous powers or they didn’t. I have never seen an argument that said they did not give themselves enormous powers. The only arguments I saw were that Facebook giving itself enormous powers to use our data is no big deal.
When I told my musician friends that Facebook can sell their music to a Ford commercial, they were appalled. The old terms allow that, but these guys are thinking, “Well, we’re not big enough for that to be a risk yet, so we’ll just delete it when it becomes a risk.” Except, that the “new” (now reverted) TOS said that deleting their music doesn’t revoke their license. How anybody can argue that it’s no big deal is just utter BS, idiocy, or Facebook employees cloaking themselves as objective observers on tech blogs.
This is great. But I don’t believe Facebook meant any harm towards its users with their previous TOS. I think, rather, it was statement on the litigiousness of our culture and merely a way to protect their ass. Maybe this is a move in the right direction towards getting back to some sensible TOS?
It doesn’t matter whether they intended harm or not. The terms have to be mutually agreeable. For Facebook to have an irrevokable, perpetual, fully paid license to sublicense and sell people’s data is just completely unnecessary and ridiculous.
People who are calling on users to just trust that their intentions are good are naive and stupid. If we could all just trust each other, then no one would have a TOS.
A bit reactive, versus proactive with this new TOS, don’t you think?
If Facebook really wants to open up its TOS to the users, it should promote an effort to create governmental laws that protect the flow of personal information in the internet age.
Universal rules that apply to all that is “Me Online”. Who can share, sell, or capitalize in any way that my personal information/online activity? Should these uses be disclosed? Should consent be required? Should revenue sharing be possible or mandatory?
This issue is greater than Facebook’s TOS, greater than Google or any other corporate entity.
If these companies truly promote freedom of information and are really on the side of the individual consumer (who after all is their customer), then they would help to mold the new laws that will govern personal information flow, even at the expense of their short term profits.
good thought, just taking couple decades to realize. the problem you talked about, as you mentioned, is greater than anyone’s range of power at this point. as long as ppl don’t die because of it, let’s put the effort elsewhere.
Lots of good changes: written in English, license follows privacy settings / account status, California law. I think the proposed statement operates the way people expect Facebook to operate.
Interestingly, users might be able to enforce it against third-party developers, too:
http://www.liti...-use/index.html
That’s a funny picture of you, Hendrickson
That’s the face I get when someone tries to grab my computer.
What is this, the Magna Carta of Social Networking?
PR move.
Much ado about nothing.
Agreed…
Words Worth s For something.great job Mark.Now you say it clear to the people ,Now we will see what will happen.and later on I hope you build also for what you saying ,Law court when you lie all those words
Everyone makes a big deal about the terms and conditions when they are brought out into the public. But in the end no one really cares… Facebook could say they sell the data and it won’t put usage any lower.
This is just a joke… A PR move to show that they “care” and in the end of the day (or month) they will post their ridiculous Terms and “Principles” without informing anyone (as they’ve done before) unless there is a public outcry.
Oh, and the funniest part:
12.3 If more than 7,000 users comment on the proposed change, we will also give you the opportunity to participate in a vote in which you will be provided alternatives. The vote shall be binding on us if more than 30% of all active registered users as of the date of the notice vote.
LOL, I doubt if 30% of Facebook users actually know their privacy settings, let alone Terms.
Privacy Settings vs. Content Publishing – that doesn´t fit at all. I seriously consider leaving FB.
Who’s [sic] Data Is It?
Welcome step. However Facebook will have to exercise this option judiciously. facebbokers are quite upset and any such move which may again upset them may prove costlier for the social networking giant,