4 ms·

> It's against Facebook's terms: > > 8. You must not use or make derivative use of Facebook icons, or use terms for Facebook features and functionality, if suc

by mrmr1993 7y ago

> It's against Facebook's terms: > > 8. You must not use or make derivative use of Facebook icons, or use terms for Facebook features and functionality, if such use could confuse users into thinking that the reference is to Facebook features or functionality. As written, if the reference is to Facebook features or functionality, then there can be no confusion and this clause does not apply. This would seem to be the case here.

weinzierl 7y ago
Makes sense but isn't Facebook's stance. See my answer to the sibling comment from thaumasiotes.
- donkeyd 7y ago
  Facebook's stance doesn't really matter in the end though. It all depends on how this will be interpreted by a judge, and I have a hard time believing that a European judge would rule in favor of Facebook, since there's no possiblity of confusion for the end user. Also, it is done to protect end-user privacy, which European judges tend to like. I'm adding European, because that's what the article is about and that's where I'm from. Not sure what would happen in a US court.
  - kingludite 7y ago
    The tech giant is its own judge and jury. IMHO to be complete the law should require web widget providers to serve what it says on the tin. AND NOTHING ELSE If it is a button so that users can bookmark articles on the facebook website then it shall only do that, nothing else. And so on: the webmaster must host the image himself. If the functionality can be accomplished with html there shall be no javascript. If there is a need for javascript it will be hosted by the webmaster and shall require consent before calling home to the mothership. For example, visiting a store doesn't give the store owner the right to search your bag. Then lets not stop there and include all advertisement??? The advertiser knows the topic of the website he is advertising on, he knows what kind of audience is attracted by a specific article. He can place his advertisement at the top or the bottom to further filter down. This gives him everything he need to advertise his product on that website. The web master can host the images. A neutral 3rd party, preferably a government agency, can track impressions and provide the advertiser with a crude estimate of traffic by region. I think it shouldn't stop at having other people do all kinds of things and pay for it. The EU could easily fund its own technologies. THE EU could give you [say] a Facebook like button in html and require you use it. That they have their own TOS is just irrelevant. Or worse, Facebook shouldn't have to invest in terms of service. We should have detailed laws removing the need for a TOS. Standard laws for social networks should apply. A restaurant owner doesn't have to clutter up his place with 100 no smoking signs. There is no contract to sign before you can eat.

weinzierl 7y ago

Makes sense but isn't Facebook's stance. See my answer to the sibling comment from thaumasiotes.

donkeyd 7y ago
Facebook's stance doesn't really matter in the end though. It all depends on how this will be interpreted by a judge, and I have a hard time believing that a European judge would rule in favor of Facebook, since there's no possiblity of confusion for the end user. Also, it is done to protect end-user privacy, which European judges tend to like. I'm adding European, because that's what the article is about and that's where I'm from. Not sure what would happen in a US court.
- kingludite 7y ago
  The tech giant is its own judge and jury. IMHO to be complete the law should require web widget providers to serve what it says on the tin. AND NOTHING ELSE If it is a button so that users can bookmark articles on the facebook website then it shall only do that, nothing else. And so on: the webmaster must host the image himself. If the functionality can be accomplished with html there shall be no javascript. If there is a need for javascript it will be hosted by the webmaster and shall require consent before calling home to the mothership. For example, visiting a store doesn't give the store owner the right to search your bag. Then lets not stop there and include all advertisement??? The advertiser knows the topic of the website he is advertising on, he knows what kind of audience is attracted by a specific article. He can place his advertisement at the top or the bottom to further filter down. This gives him everything he need to advertise his product on that website. The web master can host the images. A neutral 3rd party, preferably a government agency, can track impressions and provide the advertiser with a crude estimate of traffic by region. I think it shouldn't stop at having other people do all kinds of things and pay for it. The EU could easily fund its own technologies. THE EU could give you [say] a Facebook like button in html and require you use it. That they have their own TOS is just irrelevant. Or worse, Facebook shouldn't have to invest in terms of service. We should have detailed laws removing the need for a TOS. Standard laws for social networks should apply. A restaurant owner doesn't have to clutter up his place with 100 no smoking signs. There is no contract to sign before you can eat.