
We’re Updating Our Terms of Service to Better Explain How Facebook Works - tareqak
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/06/updating-our-terms/
======
enzanki_ars
For those that do not want to visit Facebook, but still see the unedited
version of the changes that Facebook has made, in their words:

 _> Here’s a summary of the information we’ve added to our terms:

> How we make money: We include more details on how we make money, including a
> new introduction explaining that we don’t charge you money to use our
> products because businesses and organizations pay us to show you ads.

> Content removals: We provide more information about what happens when we
> remove content that violates our terms or policies.

> Your intellectual property rights: We clarify that when you share your own
> content — like photos and videos — you continue to own the intellectual
> property rights in that content. You grant us permission to do things like
> display that content, and that permission ends when the content is deleted
> from Facebook. This is how many online services work and has always been the
> case on Facebook.

> What happens when you delete: We’re providing more detail about what happens
> when you delete content you’ve shared. For example, when you delete
> something you’ve posted, it’s no longer visible but it can take up to 90
> days to be removed from our systems._

~~~
dillonmckay
What happens when you delete muddies the IP clause.

~~~
NowThenGoodBad
Do you say that because they might still use your posted material?

Or is there some other reason?

------
ballenf
Saying “The updates do not change any of our commitments or policies” while
rewriting a contract is just a contradiction.

It’s literally impossible to rewrite a contract and claim that its meaning or
interpretation hasn’t changed. The _way_ a legal term is phrased is hugely
important especially when there is ambiguity.

I understand FB’s intent here and I don’t think the line is meant to deceive.
For example, adding terms to the agreement that make the user’s acceptance of
how they are monetized conditioned on usage (which has always been required
but is now explicit) may have big ramifications for anyone wanting to sue FB
for fraud or the like.

Easy to understand terms are a good thing, but I think it would be better to
say something like “we have attempted to capture the same meaning of the prior
policy while using easier to understand language” or the like would have been
more accurate.

~~~
a1369209993
> Saying "The updates do not change any of our commitments or policies" while
> rewriting a contract is just a contradiction.

To be scrupulously fair, that could well be interpreted as "We were already
committed, as a matter of policy and/or applicable law[0], to upholding these
additional terms not mentioned in the previous contract, and all we're doing
now is formally documenting something we were already doing.", but that would
require assuming good faith on the part of _Facebook_ of all entities, so no.

0: eg adding "We guarrantee we will provide a replacement [widget] if the one
you ordered arrives damaged." in a jurisdiction where that's legally required
anyway.

------
Aromasin
I highly recommend checking out Mark Zuckerburg's new podcast "Tech &
Society". He's discusses in length the approach they're looking to take at
Facebook. It's genuinely a really entertaining listen.

Obviously don't take everything of what he says at face value and realise that
it is without a doubt a public face, but the topics he's approached and guests
he's had on to debate him have been fantastic and engaging thus far
(including: Jonathan Zittrain, a specialist in tech law from Harvard; Mathias
Dopfner, the CEO of Europe's largest news publisher; Yuval Noah Harari, the
author of Sapiens, Homo Deus, etc; and Jenny Martinez, the dean of Stanford
Law). It's made me see him in a much different light then that of his
uncomfortable public speaker persona.

~~~
chillacy
Like most introverts there’s a lot of substance that comes out over an hour of
conversation, not a 10 second sound byte. Mass media has always optimized for
the latter but podcasts are starting to build up the former.

------
annadane
Good. Thank you. I legitimately appreciate this. Honesty is all anyone asked
for.

