Complaints force Facebook to reverse terms

If Facebook were a country, its 175 million users would make it one of the most populated in the… If Facebook were a country, its 175 million users would make it one of the most populated in the world. And, apparently, it would also be a democracy. The Web site changed its terms of use on Feb. 4 to add a provision that gave it ‘an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license’ to archive, own and display any user content that was ever posted to the site. The new terms of use stayed that way, unbeknownst to perhaps all of the site’s 175 million users for two weeks until the consumer rights advocacy blog Consumerist.com alerted the masses and provoked national debate with a post Sunday titled, ‘Facebook’s New Terms Of Service: ‘We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.” Then the outrage came and major news organizations picked up the story. As Facebook users started expressing privacy concerns, groups sprung up on the site condemning the revision and calling on the Web site’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to revoke the new changes. Fewer than 24 hours after the Consumerist article, Zuckerberg, in a post on Facebook, tried to reassure users that the change was not ill-intentioned and that people still have control over their content. But many users weren’t satisfied, and they dismissed the statement as a public relations ploy. The temporary revision received massive organized protest ‘mdash; on Facebook. Groups like ‘People Against the New Terms of Service’ grew to more than 100,000 members. With the wave of protests rising, Zuckerberg finally conceded. On Wednesday, the company withdrew the changes and re-enacted the old terms of use ‘mdash; at least temporarily ‘mdash; in a move Zuckerberg called ‘the right thing for now.’ ‘A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users,’ wrote Zuckerberg in a Facebook posting Wednesday. ‘Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.’ Consumerist.com declared the change a temporary victory, but some remain concerned about privacy issues as far as ‘who owns what,’ since Facebook’s terms of use, while unchanged for now, will be revised at some point. Pitt law professor Michael Madison, who specializes in Internet and copyright law, said the notion that Facebook could do anything it wants under the Feb. 4 revision was ‘a bit of an overstatement.’ According to Madison, two things should be noted about the now-revoked revision and any future changes. ‘One is that Facebook may outsource some of its tech support,’ he wrote in an e-mail. ‘You may take it down from Facebook, but copies may still live on those other servers, even if they aren’t online. This part is Facebook streamlining its business. The terms of service change would make that OK. ‘Two is that the change reinforces something that has always been true about Facebook and related sites: Never assume that content that you upload is within your sole control.’ David Korman, an ethics professor in the graduate schools of public and international affairs and public health, reinforced Madison’s point about assumptions. ‘One cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy when using a Facebook-like service,’ he said. ‘But a user probably does not expect that what one posts can be used in a proprietary manner by others.’ Pitt sophomore Ashley Bowen said any outrage over possible changes to Facebook’s terms of use is unnecessary. She said she won’t remove old wall posts, notes or pictures ‘mdash; not because her profile is devoid of anything future employers might deem even slightly inappropriate, but because she thinks that an accurate record of her past is important. ‘That’s the historical record of my life,’ she said. ‘I’m in college. Can’t I go to a few parties, realize that lifestyle isn’t for me and not do it again?’ Bowen said that Facebook, despite it’s potential privacy flaws, is still a media amalgamation that ‘combines the best of blogging, networking and photo-sharing as a way to express yourself and keep in touch with people.’ ‘I love Facebook and would never get rid of it,’ she said.