4 ms·
I don't think you are correct. The old TOS did not allow them to resell your pics. Also note they are saying your private pics will now be fair game as well. Y
by aptwebapps 14y ago
I don't think you are correct. The old TOS did not allow them to resell your pics. Also note they are saying your private pics will now be fair game as well.
You are correct that the old TOS seems pretty standard, but these changes are not trivial.
- nwh 14y agoThis is exactly why TOS should show a diff or revision history. Failing that, there really ought to be an external website documenting changes.
- johncoogan 14y agoI believe TOS-DR is working on it... http://tos-dr.info/ http://tos-dr.info/ Seems like it hasn't been updated in a while though...
- neilk 14y agotosback.com from the EFF used to do this, but it was taken offline a few days ago. I think someone took a look at it after the Facebook user agreement thing and either wanted to upgrade it or noticed some problems.
- Aardwolf 14y agoFind the old text somewhere. Get the new text. Copypaste both in a text file. Then use diff or meld or another difftool of your choice to compare the two text files.
- panacea 14y agoPresumably they meant, when you're 'asked to agree' to new T&C's the diff changes in the new policy are highlighted. When presented with a new T&C's policy, shouldn't you explicitly be asked to agree to any changes from the previous one you agreed to rather than be presented with the entire 14 pages which approximately 0.00001% of people will ever read before agreeing to? (And please don't say you read every EULA you encounter in full)
- roc 14y agoThen they'll just shuffle wording to ensure the changes are however-many-pages they need to be so that no-one reads those either. In general: people who don't take the time to read or consider their Terms of Service are not going to take the time to read or consider the changes.