Would it spoil the party to point out that Facebook's <i>original</i> terms of service were insane? [1] That they promised something that Facebook was unable to deliver? They allowed you to post content to Facebook, wait until that content was quoted, copied, pasted, or remixed by others, then pull the content off and sue Facebook if any of those quotations, copies, or remixes persisted anywhere on Facebook's site. Ask the MPAA how well that would have worked out for you in practice.<p>We all know that removing something which has been posted to the web is like removing the proverbial drop of food coloring from a swimming pool. With their new TOS, Facebook is stating something that's been true all along: They're running a swimming pool. Once your content is exposed to its userbase you can't take that content back.<p>I am reminded of a passage in J. Michael Straczynski's screenwriting book where he talks about how important it is to avoid sending unsolicited manuscripts to movie or TV producers. They will send the manuscripts back unopened [2] and refuse to deal with you again, because:<p><i>One individual I encountered had written a spec</i> Terminator 3 <i>script, hoping to either send it to producer James Cameron and later sue Cameron because this person was sure this would be the next story or tempt Cameron to sue him, which would force Cameron to read the script, after which he would be so thoroughly blinded by the script's brilliance that he'd buy it instantly. (No, I'm not making this up.)... Unsolicited manuscripts are the constant nightmare of any producer.</i><p>Perhaps Facebook has become large and old enough to have had its first encounter with such a copyright troll. The solution to this problem, as employed by every producer in Hollywood, is to require a release form before you'll read <i>anything</i>.<p>---<p>[1] Note that I am not a lawyer. The lawyers in the audience are welcome to explain that I'm wrong.<p>[2] "It will be returned in a larger envelope, unopened (although there will often be a tiny tear in one of the corners of the original envelope, made by a secretary to verify that it contained a script)." -- JMS
A non-evil social network would have to be distributed and based on open protocols: you could be @facebook.com but could interact with people on other networks so that users would have choice. They could even have their own server.<p>The net and the web were built like that, but now why are we building "jails" within the compelling interactivity of the "web 2.0"?<p>There are numerous interesting protocols to build upon (openid, the extensible XMPP..., etc..), and startups should use them and respect their users data. Concerning social networks there seem to be some alternatives (Elgg, OpenSocial APIs) but could a startup build something more open and still profitable on those?
Well, it's a natural power grab. If you <i>can</i> grab it, why not: who knows what financial benefits may appear later.<p>Some day a 21st Century "Diary of Ann Frank" might start with notes made on FB. Won't FB want to take advantage of print/advert/movie rights. $$$<p>"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The Cloud absorbs all. Once you live there, your life becomes one with the Cloud. You no longer belong to you. The only answer is never to have joined the Cloud. It is already too late. Resistance is futile.
I want to understand the legal structure that allows this. The TOS I agreed to most certainly did not agree to the permanent control of this data. Why am I now bound to this new one?
Would it be too far-fetched to claim that Facebook's evil terms of use create an opportunity for a new photo-sharing platform?<p>Facebook makes it very easy to share photos. What if one could still share photos with friends on Facebook, but these photos were not uploaded to Facebook's server?
Like Firefox did, just create an open source social experience and we will move our friends and family to a more open and secure place.<p>Never underestimate an angry customer...