4 ms·

Sounds like fear mongering. There aren't any terms in there that you won't find on other sites that allow users to post content. The company is protecting itsel

by ares2012 15y ago

Sounds like fear mongering. There aren't any terms in there that you won't find on other sites that allow users to post content. The company is protecting itself from misuse in a way that might not have been necessary when the Delicious service first launched in the early days of Web 2.0.

jshen 15y ago
I don't think so. I had my flickr account deleted without warning for posting pictures of Abu ghraib abuses, and they weren't the worst pictures either.
pyre 15y ago
> The company is protecting itself from misuse No. They are re-defining what the term 'misuse' means (from one agreement to the next). If posting 'obscene' links is not forbidden, then how is it a 'misuse' of the system? Also, this is the same argument that gets used by large tech companies like Microsoft for building their patent portfolios. It's 'only for defense,' so long as there is no reason to use if offensively. Would you allow the government to put CCTV cameras inside of your home so long as their promised to only use them in case someone breaks into your home (as evidence in a trial)? Once they were installed, and their 'foot is in the door,' how long do you think it will be before that usage is expanded beyond the original promise through a series a baby steps? Overly broad legal wording as a 'defensive' move is a cancer on our society.
- pstack 15y ago
  No, I agree with the fear-mongering. I guess the author needed to fill article space, this week. I'm a privacy-nut type of person and I hate restrictive and absurd licenses. I'm a fan of telling the man to eat it. Note that I'm not justifying restrictive or broad legal agreements, either. I think it's stupid. I just don't think it's any more stupid than similar agreements for similar sites that provide similar services that most of you (including the author of that article) already use every day. However, I don't see anything in the agreement that you wouldn't normally see on any other social networking site. Unlike some other online bookmarking services, Delicious is a social-networking/bookmarking service, which would explain the concern over content and age and so on. It would perturb me if I was having to agree with something like that for a service which was only me saving bookmarks with comments and tags for my own use that only I would see or access via my own account for myself, but that isn't what Delicious has turned into. Very possibly, they may have even bigger "social networking" ambitions for the service after the purchase, which may further necessitate such stringent clauses. Besides, if one cared much about that sort of thing, chances are that they wouldn't stop using Delicious now, because they would have already stopped using Delicious when Yahoo! bought them, for similar concerns over privacy and agreements.
  - dotBen 15y ago
    I don't think the author wrote the piece to fill article space because she is sitting across the dinner table from me and we've been discussing it all evening :) The issue - which has already been reiterated above - is that the Ts & Cs that the existing service operates under are changing to a far more restricted set. Your argument kinda meanders around being a privacy nut and sticking it the the man, then you say you are not justifying a stupid agreement then you say all agreements at all sites are stupid anyway. I've no idea what your point is, frankly. But you do say that the new terms are totally like all other social network sites. Well the old/existing delicious is a social network (as you state) and the new terms are very much not like the old terms. Clearly not all social network terms are equal. Besides, if one cared much about that sort of thing, chances are that they wouldn't stop using Delicious now, because they would have already stopped using Delicious when Yahoo! bought them, for similar concerns over privacy and agreements. Except that the Ts and Cs didn't change much when Y! acquired them which is why there was no need to opt-in like there is now.
    - shareme 15y ago
      It snot changing to a more restrictive set just a more defined set of TOS terms rather than being ignorant of things in the USA such as DCMA, etc.
      - pyre 15y ago
        What in the DMCA covers offensive or obscene material? I thought that it only covered copyright.
    - pstack 15y ago
      Really, I didn't figure "I'm a stickler for privacy concerns, but this example doesn't particularly bother me since it's on par with others of its kind, especially when they may be trying to make it an even more social service than it already is" was particularly meandering. If you're baffled by the idea that I can be generally concerned with privacy and bad user agreements, but not take any special exception to this one over others, then I don't know what to tell you. Some stuff is worth losing your shit over and some isn't. This isn't.
mattdeboard 15y ago
I guess no one should bother taking any lessons away from the Facebook DMCA fiasco of the past week, then? If you don't want to lose control of your data, don't stick it into walled gardens. (Though obviously exporting delicious info is much more straightforward than disentangling one's self from Facebook.)
- maigret 15y ago
  You cannot export your "friends" to import them in another network, that is right. Still the "download your data" function in Facebook is the best I've ever seen. Produces a zip with plain HTML, it's just so easy to navigate, review, print, copy, etc.
opello 15y ago
I find it hard to disagree, but after "mindlessly" opting in to the transfer, I was skimming the terms and saw heavy protection on the bookmarklet of all things. That little bit of javascript that pops open a window and sends the URL, selected text, and some other stuff in the query string. Why is that worth protecting? It's javascript! I also preferred the "if you find stuff you don't like, go away" position as opposed to the "now users, don't do stuff people might find offensive" position. They also don't seem to want me to be able to devise my own way to crawl their site, which has implications for backing up my own bookmarks if there isn't a convenient mechanism to export going forward.

jshen 15y ago

I don't think so. I had my flickr account deleted without warning for posting pictures of Abu ghraib abuses, and they weren't the worst pictures either.

pyre 15y ago

> The company is protecting itself from misuse No. They are re-defining what the term 'misuse' means (from one agreement to the next). If posting 'obscene' links is not forbidden, then how is it a 'misuse' of the system? Also, this is the same argument that gets used by large tech companies like Microsoft for building their patent portfolios. It's 'only for defense,' so long as there is no reason to use if offensively. Would you allow the government to put CCTV cameras inside of your home so long as their promised to only use them in case someone breaks into your home (as evidence in a trial)? Once they were installed, and their 'foot is in the door,' how long do you think it will be before that usage is expanded beyond the original promise through a series a baby steps? Overly broad legal wording as a 'defensive' move is a cancer on our society.

pstack 15y ago
No, I agree with the fear-mongering. I guess the author needed to fill article space, this week. I'm a privacy-nut type of person and I hate restrictive and absurd licenses. I'm a fan of telling the man to eat it. Note that I'm not justifying restrictive or broad legal agreements, either. I think it's stupid. I just don't think it's any more stupid than similar agreements for similar sites that provide similar services that most of you (including the author of that article) already use every day. However, I don't see anything in the agreement that you wouldn't normally see on any other social networking site. Unlike some other online bookmarking services, Delicious is a social-networking/bookmarking service, which would explain the concern over content and age and so on. It would perturb me if I was having to agree with something like that for a service which was only me saving bookmarks with comments and tags for my own use that only I would see or access via my own account for myself, but that isn't what Delicious has turned into. Very possibly, they may have even bigger "social networking" ambitions for the service after the purchase, which may further necessitate such stringent clauses. Besides, if one cared much about that sort of thing, chances are that they wouldn't stop using Delicious now, because they would have already stopped using Delicious when Yahoo! bought them, for similar concerns over privacy and agreements.
- dotBen 15y ago
  I don't think the author wrote the piece to fill article space because she is sitting across the dinner table from me and we've been discussing it all evening :) The issue - which has already been reiterated above - is that the Ts & Cs that the existing service operates under are changing to a far more restricted set. Your argument kinda meanders around being a privacy nut and sticking it the the man, then you say you are not justifying a stupid agreement then you say all agreements at all sites are stupid anyway. I've no idea what your point is, frankly. But you do say that the new terms are totally like all other social network sites. Well the old/existing delicious is a social network (as you state) and the new terms are very much not like the old terms. Clearly not all social network terms are equal. Besides, if one cared much about that sort of thing, chances are that they wouldn't stop using Delicious now, because they would have already stopped using Delicious when Yahoo! bought them, for similar concerns over privacy and agreements. Except that the Ts and Cs didn't change much when Y! acquired them which is why there was no need to opt-in like there is now.
  - shareme 15y ago
    It snot changing to a more restrictive set just a more defined set of TOS terms rather than being ignorant of things in the USA such as DCMA, etc.
    - pyre 15y ago
      What in the DMCA covers offensive or obscene material? I thought that it only covered copyright.
  - pstack 15y ago
    Really, I didn't figure "I'm a stickler for privacy concerns, but this example doesn't particularly bother me since it's on par with others of its kind, especially when they may be trying to make it an even more social service than it already is" was particularly meandering. If you're baffled by the idea that I can be generally concerned with privacy and bad user agreements, but not take any special exception to this one over others, then I don't know what to tell you. Some stuff is worth losing your shit over and some isn't. This isn't.

mattdeboard 15y ago

I guess no one should bother taking any lessons away from the Facebook DMCA fiasco of the past week, then? If you don't want to lose control of your data, don't stick it into walled gardens. (Though obviously exporting delicious info is much more straightforward than disentangling one's self from Facebook.)

maigret 15y ago
You cannot export your "friends" to import them in another network, that is right. Still the "download your data" function in Facebook is the best I've ever seen. Produces a zip with plain HTML, it's just so easy to navigate, review, print, copy, etc.

opello 15y ago

I find it hard to disagree, but after "mindlessly" opting in to the transfer, I was skimming the terms and saw heavy protection on the bookmarklet of all things. That little bit of javascript that pops open a window and sends the URL, selected text, and some other stuff in the query string. Why is that worth protecting? It's javascript! I also preferred the "if you find stuff you don't like, go away" position as opposed to the "now users, don't do stuff people might find offensive" position. They also don't seem to want me to be able to devise my own way to crawl their site, which has implications for backing up my own bookmarks if there isn't a convenient mechanism to export going forward.