> 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

> 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)