3 ms·

> Apparently Facebook did it the wrong way. Why? Do you honestly think that Facebook was trying to allow users to make the decision in an informed way? I sus

> Apparently Facebook did it the wrong way. Why? Do you honestly think that Facebook was trying to allow users to make the decision in an informed way? I suspect most people instead think Facebook was trying to get some way of SAYING that the users agreed while maximizing the odds that the users would be surprised to discover the implications. That'd be my answer as to "why". I could be wrong, but I can't think of an occurrence where FB seemed to be acting in their (non-advertising, non-paying) users' interests. Yet FB will claim otherwise. And that disconnect is what people are finding "wrong".

bilbo0s 8y ago
Just Devil's Advocate here, but you're essentially saying that people affirmatively agreed to something that they didn't understand in a contract of adhesion. I mean, that's kind of a tough thing to hang our hats on if the idea is to take Facebook down. From congress the best you could hope for there is for companies to be required to use "more clear" language when writing up consumer agreements in the future. Which would be a nightmare requirement in and of itself, so it would likely never happen.
- ergothus 8y ago
  > that's kind of a tough thing to hang our hats on if the idea is to take Facebook down I'm not taking a position on "taking Facebook down" - I'm arguing that legal isn't the same as moral/ethical, and it's entirely correct to label an activity as "wrong" and to be upset by it without that activity being illegal (In fact, I'd argue there's great value in having such legal-but-not-moral areas as long as they aren't too vast). I'm not well-versed enough in the legalities to SAY if the behavior is legal, but I feel well qualified to say when something feels deceptive and wrong. Outside of the general issue of legal vs moral: While I agree with you about the legal requirements of agreements, I'm also okay with saying there is such thing as bad faith in entering an agreement, and a reasonableness standard about what people are actually agreeing to seems legit - the alternative grants all the power to people who can afford the time and lawyers for every agreement. Whether such standards would have any impact on this situation is way beyond my knowledge level to be certain (i.e. I'm not saying that's the solution to this particular problem, it's just a related thought)

bilbo0s 8y ago

Just Devil's Advocate here, but you're essentially saying that people affirmatively agreed to something that they didn't understand in a contract of adhesion. I mean, that's kind of a tough thing to hang our hats on if the idea is to take Facebook down. From congress the best you could hope for there is for companies to be required to use "more clear" language when writing up consumer agreements in the future. Which would be a nightmare requirement in and of itself, so it would likely never happen.

ergothus 8y ago
> that's kind of a tough thing to hang our hats on if the idea is to take Facebook down I'm not taking a position on "taking Facebook down" - I'm arguing that legal isn't the same as moral/ethical, and it's entirely correct to label an activity as "wrong" and to be upset by it without that activity being illegal (In fact, I'd argue there's great value in having such legal-but-not-moral areas as long as they aren't too vast). I'm not well-versed enough in the legalities to SAY if the behavior is legal, but I feel well qualified to say when something feels deceptive and wrong. Outside of the general issue of legal vs moral: While I agree with you about the legal requirements of agreements, I'm also okay with saying there is such thing as bad faith in entering an agreement, and a reasonableness standard about what people are actually agreeing to seems legit - the alternative grants all the power to people who can afford the time and lawyers for every agreement. Whether such standards would have any impact on this situation is way beyond my knowledge level to be certain (i.e. I'm not saying that's the solution to this particular problem, it's just a related thought)