Facebook Listened

Due nothing to my previous post, but probably due to when it broke on Consumerist, Facebook has moved back to their previous TOS. This shows that when we all work together, we can accomplish something

That said, Mark is still functioning under the idea that because he promises something, but legally can do otherwise, we should be fine

Click here to see my OP on this issue Read more ...

Go Screw Yourself Facebook, With Your New TOS

For those of you who have been keeping your heads under some rocks, Facebook changed their TOS on the 4th. Now, according to their TOS, the version that has always been, they do not need to notify us of this change. Keep that in mind. Also to keep in mind, every time you log into facebook, even if it is automatic, you are agreeing to the new terms. Basically, they could change the terms and you are just fucked. To leave the contract you need to log on, thus agreeing to the terms... Arguably, however, if you immediately delete the account you did not agree.



Before we go any further, I would like you to read my Legal page; I am going to be talking some legal things here and want you to read that section very carefully.

So, the new TOS of Facebook states the following:
You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.
Notice the bolded part. That is right, anything you post on facebook you are granting them rights to us, forever, and anywhere. It used to be that they had the rights unless you canceled the account, but that no longer is the case. Oh, and don't forget, you agreed to arbitration as well.

Now, before we move on to the issues with this, I would like to point out two things.
1) If you don't agree to this contract, and have not signed in since the 4th, then you are able to immediately log in and delete your account. If you have signed in since then, too bad.
2) This does not apply to anything posted PRIOR to the contract. They can not create an ex-post-facto agreement so we are clear in that manner. If Facebook uses a copyrighted image you posted prior to the agreement, and you have sense deleted your account, sue them (consult your lawyer first).

Moving On

Now, this starts to get interesting when you think about what this means. For starters, it creates a fun paradox for all the people who post others images on their facebook. If I post an image made by somebody else, and Facebook uses it in a commercial, what is going to happen? They have the right to use it, as stated in the TOS, but I didn't have the right to put it up there. I really want to see this issue in court at some point.

The other issue is the fact that you are giving Facebook grounds to use your image years after you delete your blog. Blackmail, or things similar, are easily within Facebook's prerogative here as our future leaders are posting harmful images of themselves on the site. Or if I make an image, post it on facebook, and later sell the rights to it. The new owner is screwed when Facebook uses it. The fact that it is an unendable contract is unique (as far as I can tell) to websites and could create some interesting precedent if you get it in court. Oh, wait, it can't be in court, ever...

So, we understand why this change is bad..


Mark, the all glorious and great founder of Facebook, decided to try and defend his decision. He explains that this is simply done to protect Facebook and that they really wouldn't use your information. Basically, he is saying the lawyers made them do it, so you can ignore it.

FUCK THAT

I do not trust Mark one little bit. If you wanted to protect Facebook, you could make it a lot easier by databasing the ones that were deleted. The wording of the TOS change is so unique, and so bloody pompous, that it is obviously intentional. Mark simply did not understand the backlash that this would cause, and he is trying to cover his tracks. Why the hell should I trust a company when it says it is not going to harm us, but claims the right to? That is the logic Mark is using.

Let me tell you something, this change is a bad thing, and we should all protest it the best we can
Comment and let me know what you think

Read more ...

Facebook says NO NIPPLES, and I agree…

Recently, it was revealed that Facebook would remove images that they deemed offensive. For some people, this came as a surprise. For others, well, they merely read the terms when they clicked the check box saying it wouldn’t be obscene. People seemed to not be up in arms about this policy until Facebook started removing images of women breastfeeding their babies. This sparked outrage, sit-ins, and a whole bunch of other useless stuff. Yes, people were pissed because an internet company decided what it wanted on its property.


Before I start, I want to point out that this is insane. A bunch of pissed of people are protesting because a private entity didn’t want them to show certain pictures on their site. These are the same people that protested ABC because Walters didn’t feel comfortable by somebody breast feeding. Seriously now, are these militant moms?

For some reason, people think that they have a right to breast feed. News Flash: you don’t. There is no fundamental right to breast feed, and definitely no right for you to do it anywhere. If you are breast feeding in the booth next to me at a restaurant, I am most likely to file a health complaint. It just isn’t sanitary (same goes to those people with the tiny dogs). If you are doing it in a theater, I am going to go ask for a refund, as I consider it disgusting and loud. If I see you sitting on a park bench, I won’t say anything, perfectly fine with it happening there. You see, I have nothing wrong with breast feeding, just where it is done.

This leads me to my next point, why do people think that it is okay to do this in public? Unless the forum is proper (a pool, the beach, a locker room), I do not go around in public places with my shirt off. Yes, I am fat, but that is not why I do it. Just isn’t proper, and people don’t want to look at it. So why do you think that whipping out your breasts is okay in any forum? When did it become acceptable to do something so revealing in public? Sure, it might be natural, but that doesn’t mean that you should show it to everybody. My penis is 100% god-given, but I don’t whip it out to be nursed on everywhere.

Which then leads to the next question, why the hell would you post it on Facebook? It is one thing to breastfeed in public (as disgusting, wrong, and bad as I think it is). It is another to decide that you should share it with the world. Why do you think that I, your college friends, or Bob from England want to see your kid sucking on your tits? Seriously, why would we want to? If you want to share with people, send them it via email. Why are you showing off something that is private to the entire world?

Teens should probably take note of that last sentence too…

Oh, and then they go, complain, protest, and bitch when people try to remove these things. This is absurd and insane. Facebook owns its property, has the right to ban the images. Plus, they shouldn’t be shared in the first place. Basically, this is just a few hundred people angry that they can not do what they want to do. I hope they get arrested for indecent exposure and that a court rules that they have no right to do this.

As a side note, what is up with those people who breastfeed for years… seriously, Oedipus complex much? Read more ...

Internets Beware; Watch What You Post

Quick entry for today, and for most of this week, as it is exam week. Additionally, next week I will be out camping with Peter O (you should recognize his comments) in the snow and freezing my ass off... I have no idea if I will get some posts done and delay-posted or not, but I will have something up on those days.

Anyways, onto the real story. I am somewhat careful of what I post online. Sure, I have some interesting ideas that I share with you all, and I have some photos of me doing questionable things (drinking and shooting) both on here and on Facebook. But, I really am quite careful when it comes to overall information. There have been times when I posted something inappropriate, or dangerous to myself, but I usually remove them, or ask that they are immediately deleted. That said, there is a problem in this country with people who don't pay attention to this issue, so, alas, I need to warn you all on some things...

Over the weekend, CNN, and more importantly Liberal Common Sense posted a nice little blurb on the fact that the chief Obama speech writer had a nice picture up on his Facebook. It was quickly removed. Anyways, the images showed him dancing with a cutout Clinton and one of him groping the same cutout while another person gives her a beer. The more damning thing, is the fact that the other person has OBAMA STAFF on his shirt. Wow, idiots...

So, here is the deal, how can people really think that this is a good idea? I mean, you have hard workers, clearly intelligent men, but all they are doing is screwing around and telling us about it. If Obama had posted this picture, there would be a huge, huge issue. Seriously, this was a big move, and the fact that Obama did not remove the offender is a clear sign of how his administration will be run. I do, however, approve of how Clinton handled the whole thing.

So, basically, I am saying that you should all be careful of what you post online. What you say today will matter tomorrow.

Read more ...