5 ms·

I want to understand the legal structure that allows this. The TOS I agreed to most certainly did not agree to the permanent control of this data. Why am I now

I want to understand the legal structure that allows this. The TOS I agreed to most certainly did not agree to the permanent control of this data. Why am I now bound to this new one?

jerf 18y ago
The TOS that you did sign almost certainly contained a clause that said something to the effect of "You further agree that we may make any change to these terms in the future, and you will continue to be bound by them." If that bothers you, bad news: Damn near every contract you sign nowadays contains that clause. The better terms of service will permit you to at least cancel the contract after a term change if you do not consent. My CC contract had that, and I bet it's because it's required by law. But I haven't seen that many other places. Now, this might sound like a horrible clause. And it probably is. On the other hand, contracts have a real need to be mutable, and for something like the Facebook TOS, you're basically dealing with millions of parties to the contract that simply can't be meaningfully "informed" about the nature of the contract or the nature of the changes. So, it's not just a problem with evil, greedy companies, it's also a problem with the fact that people are essentially incapable of understanding the TOS (due to either time or a literal inability to comprehend) and our legal system simply requires some sort of TOS to exist. The problem is complex and does not admit a simple solution.
- Retric 18y ago
  They can say what they want but such changes to the contract is not enforceable in the US. If you sign up and they change the TOS you can use the old TOS and force them to remove your account.
  - joubert 18y ago
    Is there a way to find the TOS that was active at the time one signed up?
  - gaius 18y ago
    No you can't, not really. What about comments you left on someone's wall? What about replies you wrote that are now in someone's inbox? What about tags you added to other people's photos? Once you start to participate in something like Facebook, you really don't own the interactions you have via it. If anyone does "your network" does, but since that isn't an entity in any meaningful sense, Facebook the corporation must do.
- greyboy 18y ago
  I disagree. Facebook has one of the easiest, and certainly cheapest, methods to inform users of new TOS agreements. In contrast to your CC company, they don't have to physically mail an updated document. If the TOS change, the user can simply be presented the new terms upon logging in (the next login after the change, or course), and they have the opportunity to agree to the new terms or not. This is how some sites have tackled this problem in my own experience. If they wanted to be really fancy, they could even highlight where the changes are via change bars or text formatting. I wouldn't expect that, however.
  - unalone 18y ago
    I really don't think Facebook thinks their changing their TOS is a big deal. I'm sure they changed it because they had to, and didn't expect anybody to really care. Also, I'd imagine that as an engineer, "Create the most optimal terms-of-service change page" is a bit of a drag. Also also, if Facebook isn't intending to do this maliciously, then if they highlight stuff like the new lines Mashable's jumping on, they'll get a lot of paranoid users for nothing. If they are doing it maliciously, it's in their best interests not to let users see what's happening.
    - greyboy 18y ago
      Agreed, but it's also very easy to have the user agree to the new terms without throwing conspiracy-theorist-red-flags all around the Internets (tm).
      - unalone 18y ago
        If you're Facebook? You're a closed-off site that doesn't like interacting with other companies, and you're also incredibly popular. There's no way you can do anything without the Internet getting mad at you. I think they figure it's not worth bugging users about it.
      - jerf 18y ago
        If you think that my post was "conspiracy-theorist-red-flags", you need to read more Terms of Service. That's not a "conspiracy theory", it's a factual description of what clauses Terms of Service typically contain. Go read your credit card TOS. Go read your cell phone TOS. Go read the TOS of your favorite ten websites large enough to have a legal staff. Go read the EULA for your favorite ten pieces of commercial software. I'll wait. You'll find that clause is everywhere. I know this, because I have read them. Not to mention I then go on to talk about why they have legitimate reasons to exist and shouldn't be considered simply as "power grabs"; I explicitly repudiate conspiracy theories, with reasons. What more do you freaking want?

I want to understand the legal structure that allows this. The TOS I agreed to most certainly did not agree to the permanent control of this data. Why am I now bound to this new one?

jerf 18y ago

The TOS that you did sign almost certainly contained a clause that said something to the effect of "You further agree that we may make any change to these terms in the future, and you will continue to be bound by them." If that bothers you, bad news: Damn near every contract you sign nowadays contains that clause. The better terms of service will permit you to at least cancel the contract after a term change if you do not consent. My CC contract had that, and I bet it's because it's required by law. But I haven't seen that many other places. Now, this might sound like a horrible clause. And it probably is. On the other hand, contracts have a real need to be mutable, and for something like the Facebook TOS, you're basically dealing with millions of parties to the contract that simply can't be meaningfully "informed" about the nature of the contract or the nature of the changes. So, it's not just a problem with evil, greedy companies, it's also a problem with the fact that people are essentially incapable of understanding the TOS (due to either time or a literal inability to comprehend) and our legal system simply requires some sort of TOS to exist. The problem is complex and does not admit a simple solution.

Retric 18y ago
They can say what they want but such changes to the contract is not enforceable in the US. If you sign up and they change the TOS you can use the old TOS and force them to remove your account.
- joubert 18y ago
  Is there a way to find the TOS that was active at the time one signed up?
- gaius 18y ago
  No you can't, not really. What about comments you left on someone's wall? What about replies you wrote that are now in someone's inbox? What about tags you added to other people's photos? Once you start to participate in something like Facebook, you really don't own the interactions you have via it. If anyone does "your network" does, but since that isn't an entity in any meaningful sense, Facebook the corporation must do.
greyboy 18y ago
I disagree. Facebook has one of the easiest, and certainly cheapest, methods to inform users of new TOS agreements. In contrast to your CC company, they don't have to physically mail an updated document. If the TOS change, the user can simply be presented the new terms upon logging in (the next login after the change, or course), and they have the opportunity to agree to the new terms or not. This is how some sites have tackled this problem in my own experience. If they wanted to be really fancy, they could even highlight where the changes are via change bars or text formatting. I wouldn't expect that, however.
- unalone 18y ago
  I really don't think Facebook thinks their changing their TOS is a big deal. I'm sure they changed it because they had to, and didn't expect anybody to really care. Also, I'd imagine that as an engineer, "Create the most optimal terms-of-service change page" is a bit of a drag. Also also, if Facebook isn't intending to do this maliciously, then if they highlight stuff like the new lines Mashable's jumping on, they'll get a lot of paranoid users for nothing. If they are doing it maliciously, it's in their best interests not to let users see what's happening.
  - greyboy 18y ago
    Agreed, but it's also very easy to have the user agree to the new terms without throwing conspiracy-theorist-red-flags all around the Internets (tm).
    - unalone 18y ago
      If you're Facebook? You're a closed-off site that doesn't like interacting with other companies, and you're also incredibly popular. There's no way you can do anything without the Internet getting mad at you. I think they figure it's not worth bugging users about it.
    - jerf 18y ago
      If you think that my post was "conspiracy-theorist-red-flags", you need to read more Terms of Service. That's not a "conspiracy theory", it's a factual description of what clauses Terms of Service typically contain. Go read your credit card TOS. Go read your cell phone TOS. Go read the TOS of your favorite ten websites large enough to have a legal staff. Go read the EULA for your favorite ten pieces of commercial software. I'll wait. You'll find that clause is everywhere. I know this, because I have read them. Not to mention I then go on to talk about why they have legitimate reasons to exist and shouldn't be considered simply as "power grabs"; I explicitly repudiate conspiracy theories, with reasons. What more do you freaking want?