4 ms·

Clearly there is a big disconnect here. It seems somebody is suggesting there should be a correlation between a user removing content from their account and Fa

Clearly there is a big disconnect here. It seems somebody is suggesting there should be a correlation between a user removing content from their account and Facebook destroying some of Facebook property. Anything submitted to Facebook is the property of Facebook. Users have no business telling Facebook to destroy Facebook property.

kerkeslager 9y ago
> Anything submitted to Facebook is the property of Facebook. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Are we to accept that this is how it works simply because Facebook says this is how it works?
- lerpa 9y ago
  You accept that when you join.
  - kerkeslager 9y ago
    Users didn't accept anything just because they checked a checkbox next to a link to an ever-changing jumble of legalese to get past a screen. This isn't agreement, it's manufactured consent.
    - samstave 9y ago
      Extortion
      - lerpa 9y ago
        That's like saying having to pay for any product is extortion, just because it's something you want but don't want the consequences of that, in that case paying for it.
    - _acme 9y ago
      Unfortunately no matter how many times you say this or how much you wish it were true, US (at least) courts have disagreed with you by enforcing contracts of adhesion.
      - kerkeslager 9y ago
        I think we're in agreement, we're just saying things slightly differently. I believe human rights exist and are an ethical imperative whether or not lawmakers/courts choose to protect human rights. Or put another way, the law should be (but often isn't) informed by human rights--human rights aren't informed by the law.
- austincheney 9y ago
  Facebook's terms of services agreement that you must consent to in order to open or maintain your account. These are the rules not because Facebook says so, but because you say so when you agree to their terms.
  - kerkeslager 9y ago
    Let's be clear here: I'm not the Facebook user in question. I've never uploaded a video to Facebook and never will. Users didn't sign or agree to anything just because they checked a checkbox next to a link to an ever-changing jumble of legalese to get past a screen. This isn't agreement, it's manufactured consent.
    - austincheney 9y ago
      > Users didn't sign or agree to anything just because they checked a checkbox next to a link to an ever-changing jumble of legalese to get past a screen. This isn't agreement, it's manufactured consent. What is the difference? I am thinking if a person really actually cared they would have read the legal agreement before checking the checkbox in question and possibly consulted an attorney of their own. I am thinking most users absolutely do not care and agree out-right and immediately to all claims presented by Facebook. How is that not still agreement?
      - kerkeslager 9y ago
        You can't claim users don't care about their videos not being deleted--the fact that they do care is exactly why this is in the news. They may click past a screen because they think that they don't care, but that's only because they don't understand the implications of doing so. Part of the reason is that a lot of people naively believe that a respectable company like Facebook wouldn't try to screw them over, and would behave with their best interests in mind. It's unrealistic to expect that users will read AND understand the TOS of every website AND all of the changes to the TOS that occur over time.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 9y ago
Facebook disagrees: "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook" https://www.facebook.com/terms.php https://www.facebook.com/terms.php
- austincheney 9y ago
  It also says you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This link addresses your concerns by clarifying a prior form of the above mentioned policy: http://legalteamusa.net/tacticalip/2013/02/11/does-facebook-have-control-over-your-ip-content/ http://legalteamusa.net/tacticalip/2013/02/11/does-facebook-... I suspect the Facebook IP Policy is a standard blanket of legal compliance if the following is that policy: https://www.facebook.com/help/intellectual_property https://www.facebook.com/help/intellectual_property In short Facebook can do anything they want with the IP content you provide to them. It also identifies, by example, IP content as media you provide to them. For that material the policy is pretty clear, but what about other material? What about textual content that is typed into Facebook and identified relationships? It seems this information is covered by the same policies and is IP subject to Facebook's use. My understanding of Facebook policy is also likely dated as their terms change periodically. The current policy is dated at 30 January 2015.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    If you read a bit further, it says the license ends when you and the other users with whom you have shared the content delete it, which was the case we were discussing.

kerkeslager 9y ago

> Anything submitted to Facebook is the property of Facebook. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Are we to accept that this is how it works simply because Facebook says this is how it works?

lerpa 9y ago
You accept that when you join.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  Users didn't accept anything just because they checked a checkbox next to a link to an ever-changing jumble of legalese to get past a screen. This isn't agreement, it's manufactured consent.
  - samstave 9y ago
    Extortion
    - lerpa 9y ago
      That's like saying having to pay for any product is extortion, just because it's something you want but don't want the consequences of that, in that case paying for it.
  - _acme 9y ago
    Unfortunately no matter how many times you say this or how much you wish it were true, US (at least) courts have disagreed with you by enforcing contracts of adhesion.
    - kerkeslager 9y ago
      I think we're in agreement, we're just saying things slightly differently. I believe human rights exist and are an ethical imperative whether or not lawmakers/courts choose to protect human rights. Or put another way, the law should be (but often isn't) informed by human rights--human rights aren't informed by the law.
austincheney 9y ago
Facebook's terms of services agreement that you must consent to in order to open or maintain your account. These are the rules not because Facebook says so, but because you say so when you agree to their terms.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  Let's be clear here: I'm not the Facebook user in question. I've never uploaded a video to Facebook and never will. Users didn't sign or agree to anything just because they checked a checkbox next to a link to an ever-changing jumble of legalese to get past a screen. This isn't agreement, it's manufactured consent.
  - austincheney 9y ago
    > Users didn't sign or agree to anything just because they checked a checkbox next to a link to an ever-changing jumble of legalese to get past a screen. This isn't agreement, it's manufactured consent. What is the difference? I am thinking if a person really actually cared they would have read the legal agreement before checking the checkbox in question and possibly consulted an attorney of their own. I am thinking most users absolutely do not care and agree out-right and immediately to all claims presented by Facebook. How is that not still agreement?
    - kerkeslager 9y ago
      You can't claim users don't care about their videos not being deleted--the fact that they do care is exactly why this is in the news. They may click past a screen because they think that they don't care, but that's only because they don't understand the implications of doing so. Part of the reason is that a lot of people naively believe that a respectable company like Facebook wouldn't try to screw them over, and would behave with their best interests in mind. It's unrealistic to expect that users will read AND understand the TOS of every website AND all of the changes to the TOS that occur over time.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

icebraining 9y ago

Facebook disagrees: "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook" https://www.facebook.com/terms.php https://www.facebook.com/terms.php

austincheney 9y ago
It also says you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This link addresses your concerns by clarifying a prior form of the above mentioned policy: http://legalteamusa.net/tacticalip/2013/02/11/does-facebook-have-control-over-your-ip-content/ http://legalteamusa.net/tacticalip/2013/02/11/does-facebook-... I suspect the Facebook IP Policy is a standard blanket of legal compliance if the following is that policy: https://www.facebook.com/help/intellectual_property https://www.facebook.com/help/intellectual_property In short Facebook can do anything they want with the IP content you provide to them. It also identifies, by example, IP content as media you provide to them. For that material the policy is pretty clear, but what about other material? What about textual content that is typed into Facebook and identified relationships? It seems this information is covered by the same policies and is IP subject to Facebook's use. My understanding of Facebook policy is also likely dated as their terms change periodically. The current policy is dated at 30 January 2015.
- icebraining 9y ago
  If you read a bit further, it says the license ends when you and the other users with whom you have shared the content delete it, which was the case we were discussing.