4 ms·

you have taken a highly condescending and counterproductive method of argument. You list neither the specific provisions in the TOS, nor does you cite any law

by swat535 12y ago

you have taken a highly condescending and counterproductive method of argument. You list neither the specific provisions in the TOS, nor does you cite any law or custom to validate your position. 1) messages sent through chat are not specifically covered by Facebook's TOS, as such, the individual's premise that it is is false 2) whether or not the content is Facebook's property is irrelevant, privacy laws in QC forbid publication of this content under most circumstances (exceptions being public safety etc finally, anyone who honestly thinks anyone working for Facebook has any occupational need to look at their chat logs has a rather inflated opinion of themselves

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
teddyh 12y ago
Actual publication of anyone’s chat logs is not what anyone is reasonably concerned about – it is a diversion. The real thing which Facebook does is total information analysis of everything about everybody, storing this analysis internally, and making the results available to unknown numbers of external parties, or alternatively allowing external parties to specify analysis algorithms to be specified, run them internally, and report the results to external entities. None of these things involve publication of any actual content provided to Facebook. Also, the idea that the danger is that Facebook employees should read any chat logs is also a straw man argument – a distraction. Nobody except straw men actually puts forth this as a major problem. You would have been right to dismiss it, except that nobody made that argument. To be fair, it might happen, but the scale at which it even could happen is by definition limited, since Facebook cannot have that many employees with the time and inclination to do it. The real issue is the above procedure of eternal storage and analysis – on behalf of external parties and/or for internal use. Your arguments are highly diversionary, and seem to be aimed at confusing the issue.
- swat535 12y ago
  Facebook has the ability to scan and monitor chat logs and this is not prohibited either by their TOS or provincial law (for Quebec at least). However I am not sure you realized that I took the discussion a step further by pointing out, although I admit I should have made this clear to begin with, that the concept of ownership of the content of said logs can be divided into several different aspects. There is the intellectual ownership (the ideas contained in the logs), there is the right to consult and have access to the logs, there is the publication right etc. These rights are also independent of one another, someone may have the right to consult the logs, but not to publish, or may have the right to publish, but only once someone who has the right to consult this information has given it to them Also, it bears mentioning that simply claiming my argument is a straw man argument without actually telling me how that is so does nothing to show that it is so the issue of ownership was discussed in the first half of my commentary where i mentioned that Facebook's TOS allowed them do do what was described as such I addressed and confirmed OP's position I then added that there were implications with what was being discussed and proceeded to give an example. Taken alone, yes it would be a straw man argument on my part, however, the point behind my commentary was to show that the practical damage that could be done by such a practice as monitoring and storing the information of chat logs would be minimized by the fact that not everyone can consult and publish that content

by swat535 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

teddyh 12y ago

Actual publication of anyone’s chat logs is not what anyone is reasonably concerned about – it is a diversion. The real thing which Facebook does is total information analysis of everything about everybody, storing this analysis internally, and making the results available to unknown numbers of external parties, or alternatively allowing external parties to specify analysis algorithms to be specified, run them internally, and report the results to external entities. None of these things involve publication of any actual content provided to Facebook. Also, the idea that the danger is that Facebook employees should read any chat logs is also a straw man argument – a distraction. Nobody except straw men actually puts forth this as a major problem. You would have been right to dismiss it, except that nobody made that argument. To be fair, it might happen, but the scale at which it even could happen is by definition limited, since Facebook cannot have that many employees with the time and inclination to do it. The real issue is the above procedure of eternal storage and analysis – on behalf of external parties and/or for internal use. Your arguments are highly diversionary, and seem to be aimed at confusing the issue.

swat535 12y ago
Facebook has the ability to scan and monitor chat logs and this is not prohibited either by their TOS or provincial law (for Quebec at least). However I am not sure you realized that I took the discussion a step further by pointing out, although I admit I should have made this clear to begin with, that the concept of ownership of the content of said logs can be divided into several different aspects. There is the intellectual ownership (the ideas contained in the logs), there is the right to consult and have access to the logs, there is the publication right etc. These rights are also independent of one another, someone may have the right to consult the logs, but not to publish, or may have the right to publish, but only once someone who has the right to consult this information has given it to them Also, it bears mentioning that simply claiming my argument is a straw man argument without actually telling me how that is so does nothing to show that it is so the issue of ownership was discussed in the first half of my commentary where i mentioned that Facebook's TOS allowed them do do what was described as such I addressed and confirmed OP's position I then added that there were implications with what was being discussed and proceeded to give an example. Taken alone, yes it would be a straw man argument on my part, however, the point behind my commentary was to show that the practical damage that could be done by such a practice as monitoring and storing the information of chat logs would be minimized by the fact that not everyone can consult and publish that content