[Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS

Showing 1-11 of 11 messages
[Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS Hugo Roy 6/9/12 9:19 AM
It seems that more and more website since last year have decided to
adopt a somehow better approach to handle changes in Terms of Services.
Facebook is no exception to that trend as we can see from the last
changes in April 2012.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-tweaks-terms-of-use-based-on-feedback-asks-for-more/12024
        The company gave users a week to give feedback. After examining
        the thousands of comments it received, Facebook has made further
        tweaks to its terms of use document, and has opened up another
        comment period.

The process was translated.

According to some articles the feedback was taken into account (i.e. the
process resulted in changes). But how relevant this is can be subject of
discussion. However we have to acknowledge the effort that's put in that
process and that deserves an A.

--
Hugo Roy
  French Coordinator, FSFE       chat: hu...@jabber.fsfe.org
  www.fsfe.org/about/roy         mobile: +336 08 74 13 41
                                 mobile DE: +49 151 143 56 563

[bad] Re: [Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS Hugo Roy 6/11/12 3:51 AM
I have to say, I'm amazed by how much Facebook succeeds in tearing down
any positive aspect that I can find in it.  This was a fast one (2
months).

So in a nutshell, while I was praising facebook for their new practices
of soliciting feedback from their users before launching new policies or
terms and lauded their effort in setting up such a process; I now must
contradict myself and point out how ridiculous the implementation is.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112551484/lack-of-participation-makes-facebook-privacy-policy-vote-non-binding/
Lack Of Participation Makes Facebook Privacy Policy Vote Non-Binding

        A seven-day voting period regarding whether Facebook should
        adopt a new privacy and user rights policy or continue using the
        existing one has come and gone, and despite an overwhelming
        percentage of voters choosing the current regulations, the
        revised code will be implemented by the popular social network.
       
        The reason, explains Casey Johnston of Ars Technica, is that a
        minimum of 270 million individuals, or 30% of all Facebook
        members, needed to cast their vote in order for it the results
        to be binding.
       
        Only 342,632 (or approximately 0.038% of the website’s 900
        million plus user base) did so, with slightly less than 300,000
        voting against the new Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
        (SRR) and Data Use Policy and 45,000 voting against it, she
        added. As such, Facebook will only consider the results “in an
        advisory manner as it mulls a change over its new policies,”
        Johnston said.
       
        “The vote was triggered because a critical mass of people had
        commented on the proposed policies — seven times the amount
        needed, in fact,” CNET‘s Elinor Mills wrote on Friday
       
        Source: redOrbit (http://s.tt/1dWmc)
        A seven-day voting period regarding whether Facebook should
        adopt a new privacy and user rights policy or continue using the
        existing one has come and gone, and despite an overwhelming
        percentage of voters choosing the current regulations, the
        revised code will be implemented by the popular social network.
       
        The reason, explains Casey Johnston of Ars Technica, is that a
        minimum of 270 million individuals, or 30% of all Facebook
        members, needed to cast their vote in order for it the results
        to be binding.
       
        Only 342,632 (or approximately 0.038% of the website’s 900
        million plus user base) did so, with slightly less than 300,000
        voting against the new Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
        (SRR) and Data Use Policy and 45,000 voting against it, she
        added. As such, Facebook will only consider the results “in an
        advisory manner as it mulls a change over its new policies,”
        Johnston said.
       
        “The vote was triggered because a critical mass of people had
        commented on the proposed policies — seven times the amount
        needed, in fact,” CNET‘s Elinor Mills wrote on Friday
       
        Source: redOrbit (http://s.tt/1dWmc)

Today I'll focus on Facebook's way of updating their policy to find out
what exactly is set up there; as this new development plainly
contradicts what has been reported in April.
Re: [bad] Re: [Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS Hugo Roy 6/11/12 7:23 AM
Sorry, I got a bit lost in the maze of Facebook's policies. Not having a
Facebook account any more doesn't really help :) I haven't been able to
find the documents that were available for the vote. I guess they must
be somewhere and very valuable as they're supposed to enlighten the
reader about the proposed changes in the Terms & Policies.

Anyway - I don't know what was the subject of the changes in April 2012
- but anyway here's what the general Terms state:
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

        13. Amendments
       
        We can change this Statement if we provide you notice (by
        posting the change on the Facebook Site Governance Page) and an
        opportunity to comment.  To get notice of any future changes to
        this Statement, visit our Facebook Site Governance Page and
        become a fan.
        […]
        we will give you a minimum of seven days notice. All such
        comments must be made on the Facebook Site Governance Page.
       
        If more than 7,000 users comment on the proposed change, we will
        also give you the opportunity to participate in a vote in which
        you will be provided alternatives.
       
That's all very laudable. So far, so good. Most ToS don't give such a
possibility.  But here comes the fun:
       
        The vote shall be binding on us if more than 30% of all active
        registered users as of the date of the notice vote.

Needless to say, that's laughable.  We can expect that this ratio means
the vote will never be a big risk for Facebook. The terms define the
base "active registered user" as "a user who has logged into Facebook at
least once in the previous 30 days."

So most estimates in the press that took into account the total user
base of Facebook (900 million) are wrong unless they researched that all
facebook users are active; which I doubt is the case.

The real question that is asked before ourselves here is the following:
        While Facebook has a process that allows 7,000 users to solicit
        a vote on a proposed change in terms upon notice of such
        proposal — the implementation of the vote requires an impossible
        participation rate in order to apply considering the low
        publicity the vote has gained.
       
Hence I propose to withdraw my former proposal to give an "A" (or +++)
to this and downgrade to B (or "+") (because this is still better than
other terms that can be changed by the operator of the service at any
time, just on notice).
Re: [bad] Re: [Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS Hugo Roy 6/11/12 7:31 AM
Le lundi 11 juin 2012 à 16:23 +0200, Hugo Roy a écrit :

I haven't been able to
find the documents that were available for the vote. I guess they must
be somewhere and very valuable as they're supposed to enlighten the
reader about the proposed changes in the Terms & Policies.

That must be it:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-site-governance/explanation-of-changes/10151726574510301


Explanation of changes

by Facebook Site Governance on Friday, May 11, 2012 at 8:52am ·
We want to make sure you understand the proposed updates to the Data Use Policy so we have included descriptions of the changes by section. While we’ve provided a lot of information below, the vast majority of the proposed changes represent additional explanations of current practices rather than substantive changes in how we use your data. We are proposing three main categories of changes to our Data Use Policy: (1) examples and explanations to enhance the descriptions of our policiesmany of which were based on recommendations from the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s Office, the regulatory oversight agency for our services outside the U.S. and Canada; (2) new language to explain our policies around new features we’ve launched or updated since we last revised our Data Use Policy; and (3) administrative and organizational changes.

 

General

 

Since the last revision to our Data Use Policy, we launched Facebook Timeline. Therefore, we’re changing “profile” to “timeline” and “post” to “story” throughout the Data Use Policy and including references to features, like cover photos, that work with timeline.

 

In addition, there were a few places where the Data Use Policy was duplicative or where items would be more relevant in other sections. To address those organizational issues, we consolidated a few discussions into the sections where we thought they made the most sense. 

 

Section I. Information we receive and how it is used 

This section explains the type of information we receive and how we use that information. We have updated the policy in the following ways:

  • Your information and Information that is always publicly available. In these sections, we’ve stated the kinds of information about you that are always public. For instance, your gender is public information, and we use your gender throughout the site to refer to you properly. And, as we’ve explained throughout the Data Use Policy, your gender is shared with apps so they can refer to you properly as well. You will still be able to hide your gender on your timeline. In addition, cover photos are a new part of the Facebook experience, and we’re updating the Data Use Policy to let you know that, just like your profile pictures, your cover photos are public. If you’re uncomfortable with making your profile pictures or cover photos public, you can always delete them.
  • Information others share about you. We’ve added some language to clarify how others may share information about you (for example, posting a picture of you or by uploading your contact information). In additionwe consolidated some language in this section about apps into the section entitled Controlling what information you share with applications.
  • Other information we receive about you. We’ve provided additional descriptions around the ways we receive information about you when you interact with Facebook and how that information may be used. For example, we’ve added clarifications about the types of data we receive about you when you use our mobile app. In addition, we have replaced the specific reference to data retention around advertisers with an overall data retention commitment, which is described below in How we use the information we receive.
  • Usernames and User IDs. The clarifications in this section provide further information about your Username and User ID, including that we will assign usernames and Facebook email addresses to your Facebook account if you have not selected them already. This makes it easier for you to tell friends how to find your timeline and for you to email people off Facebook.
  • How we use the information we receive. We receive information about you through your interaction with Facebook. In this section we’re providing more examples of the ways we may use that data to continue to provide you with the best features and services possible. For example, we may use this data to deliver ads that are more relevant to you. We’ve also included a reminder that when others share information about you, they control how that information is shared.

 

In addition, we’ve added new language that explains our overall commitment around data retention: we will retain data for as long as necessary to provide services to users and others. This broader commitment applies to all data we collect and receive about you, including information from advertisers. With respect to advertisers, those relationships are evolving because of the different services we provide. We will continue to retain data received from advertisers for 180 days where that length of time is necessary to provide services. But there may be some times when we will need to keep information that we get from an advertiser for longer than 180 days. For example, if an advertiser creates a Facebook Page, we wouldn't delete information the advertiser puts on its page simply because 180 days had passed. Instead, we would delete it when it was no longer needed — when the page owner deleted it or closed its account. The revisions in this section do not change our commitment that we won't share information that personally identifies you with advertisers without your permission.

  • Deleting and deactivating your account. We added tips to these two sections. One that clarifies that friends will see you in their friend lists while your account is deactivated. And a second that explains that certain logs are needed to provide you with service during the lifetime of your account and therefore are deleted only after you delete your account.

Section II. Sharing and finding you on Facebook

This section is designed to help you understand how you can use your privacy settings to control the information you share on Facebook and how people can find you. We have updated the policy in the following ways:

  • Control each time you post. We’ve added a tip to be sure you know that someone may deduce information about you even if you don’t share it. For example, we note that people might guess it is your birthday because your friends have posted birthday wishes on your timeline. You have the ability to delete or hide these posts from your timeline if you wish. We also added some language to illustrate our existing statement that, when you make a comment on someone else’s post, that person – not you – gets to select the audience.
  • Control over your timeline. The new tip in this section clarifies that, even if you restrict who can see your entire list of friends, when someone visits your timeline, they may be able to see some of the mutual friends you have in common. That’s because some of those mutual friends have set a different audience for their list than you have.
  • Finding you on Facebook. We’ve included more detail about how people can find you on Facebook. You can use your privacy settings to control whether someone can see your contact information (such as your email and telephone number) on your timeline. In addition, we offer a separate setting to control whether people can search for you using that contact information. This is because you might want people who know your contact information to find you but you might not want to show your contact information to people who don’t already have it. We also explain that neither of these settings impacts whether someone can find your timeline when they search for content that they have permission to see.
  • Access on phones and other devices. Since more people than ever are using Facebook on their mobile phones, we thought it was important to add more information about how Facebook works on mobile devices. As part of mobile integrations, other users may sync or save information you’ve shared with them to their mobile devices – such as contact information or event information from a calendar invite. We have included a tip to remind you that you should only share information with people you trust because they may be able to store or re-share that information, including by syncing it with a mobile device.
  • Activity log. With the launch of timeline, we also launched an exciting new control tool, Activity Log, which gives you one place to see the things you’ve posted to Facebook. From your Activity Log, you can change the visibility of your posts or control whether they show up in your timeline. Only you can see your Activity Log.
  • Links and Tags. We added new language in this section to explain further how tags function. Simple URL references to someone’s Facebook timeline are links, not tags. Tags are a special type of link that add you and your friends to the audience of the post and add content to your timeline. You can choose whether the story you’ve been tagged in appears on your timeline and which audience sees it through the many tools Facebook provides to control tagging. For example in your privacy settings you can turn on timeline review, which allows you to review posts and photos you're tagged in before they go on your timeline.
  • Groups. The new language clarifies how you can join Groups and be added to subgroups. It reflects our launch of Groups for Schools, which are special groups that are only open to people who have a confirmed email address for a particular school. For example, you can join the University of Florida group if you go to school there and have a confirmed @ufl.edu email address. Groups for Schools have subgroups within them – for instance, a subgroup for your English class. If you’re in the University of Florida group, then anyone in that group (even if they aren’t your friend on Facebook) can invite you to a University of Florida subgroup.
  • About Pages. We’ve added a tip to this section to make sure you know that Page administrators receive aggregate information on how their customers or fans are interacting with their Pages. In addition, similar to timeline, Page administrators may know you’ve made a connection to their Page if you “like” their Page or post a comment.

Section III. Other websites and applications

This section provides information about features like social plugins and the ways in which your information is shared with applications and websites you and your friends use. We have updated the policy in the following ways:

  • Controlling what information you share with applications. We’ve added language here to clarify the type of information apps receive when you install them. We describe the limited categories of information that Facebook tells apps when you first visit them. If an app wants additional information, they must get your permission. If you do this, the app can access, store and update that information. Once you haven’t used the app for a while, however, that app won’t be able to continue updating this additional information until you give it permission again. In addition, we’ve added a tip to remind you that apps have their own policies around how they handle the data they receive and that you should contact an app directly if you want your information deleted.
  • Controlling what is shared when the people you share with use applications. You can use the “Apps and Websites” privacy setting to control the information others share about you with the apps they use, except for public information about you or your list of friends.
  • Logging in to another site using Facebook. Through Facebook Platform you can log into other applications and websites using your Facebook account. We added language to this section to remind you that we provide the site with your User ID when you login, just like when you connect with any other application. In addition, we have clarified that we use a technology called "hashing" that is designed to protect your email address when you use Facebook to login to another website. This technology offers a similar level of protection to encryption. We scramble your email address and then instruct the other website to scramble it in the same way. If the scrambled versions match, we can identify your account without needing to send your email address to the other website.
  • About social plugins. Social plugins are tools that other websites can use to provide you with personalized and social experiences. When you interact with social plugins, you can share your experiences off Facebook with your friends and others on Facebook. We have launched new social plugins since we last updated the Data Use Policy, so we want to provide you with additional information on how plugins operate. We have not changed the information we collect through plugins or our policy about how we use that information. For more information, see our Help Center (https://www.facebook.com/help/social-plugin-privacy).
  • About instant personalization. We’ve added language to explain that, in addition to websites, apps may also use instant personalization (including those on Pages on Facebook).

Section IV. How Advertising and Sponsored Stories work

These sections explain how we serve you ads and sponsored stories and our use of cookies. We have updated the policy in the following ways:

  • Personalized ads. We’re providing more details about how we serve you personalized ads, including the information we use to serve you ads and make them more relevant to you. We use cookies, pixels or similar technologies to measure and understand the performance of our ads, to serve other ads and to generally make our ads more effective. We want to be sure you understand how cookies work, so we have added more information about them in the Data Use Policy and added a link to our Help Center (https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=176591669064814). We’re also clarifying our existing disclosure that we might show ads off Facebook to explain that, if we showed these ads, they may or may not include social context (such as whether your friends have “liked” a particular business).
  • Ads and social context, Sponsored stories and Facebook content. We added tips into these sections to clarify that your “Show my social actions in Facebook Ads” setting only controls ads with social context. This setting doesn’t impact Sponsored Stories, which are different from Facebook ads.

Section V. Cookies, pixels, and other system technologies

We are moving the section on Minors and Safety to Section VI. We have not made any changes to the content of this section.

We’ve moved up and added to the section on Cookies. The new proposed Section V is calledCookies, pixels, and other system technologies. Since cookies are a very commonly used technology, we want to provide you with more detail on how Facebook uses cookies and similar technologies. We also include a tip in this section reminding you that you can remove or block cookies and similar technologies.

Section VI. Some other things you need to know

  • Safe harbor. As part of our participation in the Safe Harbor program, we added contact information for TRUSTe, a global privacy management solutions provider through which we agree to resolve any disputes.
  • Contact us with questions or disputes. We added contact info for questions or complaints about the Data Use Policy.
  • Responding to legal requests and preventing harm. The new language in this section further explains the legal obligations and other circumstances in which we may access, preserve or share your information in a way that is different from how we normally handle it.
  • Access requests. This section reflects our belief that you should have access to your personal data on Facebook. We’ve updated this language to reflect a recently launched expansion to Download Your Information, a tool that allows you access to an expanded archive of your Facebook account history.
  • Memorializing accounts. The revisions to this section reflect new features like timeline and the fact that requests to access or close a deceased person’s Facebook account are subject to legal or procedural requirements.
  • Service Providers. Like other companies, we sometimes use outside service providers to help improve the services we offer, such as by processing payments. We’ve added language to this section to elaborate on how we use service providers.
  • Security and bugs. We have systems in place that attempt to keep Facebook operating bug-free and safe. Additionally, we have a White Hat Bug Bounty Program where people can responsibly disclose bugs on our site so that they can be escalated for immediate review. The new language in this section is a reminder that no system is perfect.
  • Information for users outside the United States and Canada. We added contact information for our international headquarters, Facebook Ireland Limited, which provides services to users outside the U.S. and Canada.
  • Your California Privacy Rights. We added this section as another way for California residents to get information on how to contact us. 

-- 
Hugo Roy 
  French Coordinator, FSFE       chat: hu...@jabber.fsfe.org
  www.fsfe.org/about/roy         mobile: +336 08 74 13 41
                                 mobile DE: +49 151 143 56 563
Re: [bad] Re: [Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS Hugo Roy 11/15/12 11:42 PM
Le vendredi 16 novembre 2012 à 08:29 +0800, Michiel de Jong a écrit :
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Hugo Roy <hu...@fsfe.org> wrote:
> > Facebook's is consultative
>
> also, iirc they say they will ignore any outcome of the consultation
> unless several hundred million people propose the same thing at the
> same time. which means Facebook's consultation is basically a puppet
> show. is there any example of a clause in the Facebook terms that was
> drafted by someone who is not a Facebook employee?
>
> i find it quite insulting if they ask for our opinion and then ignore
> what we say, so imho they should actually get negative points for
> taking the mickey like that, unless there is some evidence that the
> whole thing they did was more than a farce.
>
>
That's pretty extreme. If you compare services where there's absolutely
no feedback organised, to Facebook's or Wikipedia's terms which makes it
a requirement to organise the feedback (and in facebook's case, it can
be binding if a certain ratio is obtained): then there's absolutely no
reason to give that negative points.

Consultation is better than no feedback at all. There's no reason to put
evil intentions behind each of facebook's action. (btw, please reply to
the appropriate thread).
Re: [bad] Re: [Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS Michiel de Jong 11/16/12 1:43 AM
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Hugo Roy <hu...@fsfe.org> wrote:
> Le vendredi 16 novembre 2012 à 08:29 +0800, Michiel de Jong a écrit :
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Hugo Roy <hu...@fsfe.org> wrote:
>> > Facebook's is consultative
>>
>> also, iirc they say they will ignore any outcome of the consultation
>> unless several hundred million people propose the same thing at the
>> same time. which means Facebook's consultation is basically a puppet
>> show. is there any example of a clause in the Facebook terms that was
>> drafted by someone who is not a Facebook employee?
>>
>> i find it quite insulting if they ask for our opinion and then ignore
>> what we say, so imho they should actually get negative points for
>> taking the mickey like that, unless there is some evidence that the
>> whole thing they did was more than a farce.
>>
>
> That's pretty extreme. If you compare services where there's absolutely
> no feedback organised, to Facebook's or Wikipedia's terms which makes it
> a requirement to organise the feedback (and in facebook's case, it can
> be binding if a certain ratio is obtained): then there's absolutely no
> reason to give that negative points.
>
> Consultation is better than no feedback at all. There's no reason to put
> evil intentions behind each of facebook's action. (btw, please reply to
> the appropriate thread).

ok, two separate points:
- as is clear from http://www.zdnet.com/facebook-tweaks-terms-over-censorship-fears-4010025936/ they do listen to their users, which is Good.
- as is clear from http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112551484/lack-of-participation-makes-facebook-privacy-policy-vote-non-binding/ the vote would only have been binding if 90,000% of respondents would have voted against the change.

90,000% > 100% so that is impossible. the thing about the vote being binding was a farce. You are right in saying i cannot guess their intentions.

it is possible that they simply don't understand maths, and the unrealistic threshold was an unintended mistake. That seems highly unlikely though, and also, after this came to light, afaik there was no statement saying "oops, we got the maths wrong, we meant 30% of respondents, not 30% of all users".

a company that does something like this by mistake, without intention, would apologize afterwards and correct it. Since it looks like they did not do that, it seems safe to me to conclude that it was intentionally made impossible for the vote to be binding.

Now there is nothing wrong with requesting feedback and doing a non-binding vote. But we should not give them points for the vote being binding, because in practice, it is not - a 90,000% threshold is mathematically impossible to reach.

as to the insulting nature ("taking the mickey" as i called it in my post), i guess that's too subjective to be included in the review, but that does not make it less true. :)

so all in all, i agree with the way it's currently reflected on http://tos-dr.info/index.html#facebook :

-----
You can give your feedback before changes Discussion

Facebook has a recent practice to solicit your feedback during the 3 or 7 days minimum preceding changes to their terms. However, the results are not binding unless 30% of the active users voted.

------


Ciao,
Michiel.
Re: [tosdr:1101] Re: [bad] Re: [Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS Hugo Roy 11/16/12 2:01 AM
Le vendredi 16 novembre 2012 à 01:43 -0800, Michiel de Jong a écrit :
>
> ok, two separate points:
> - as is clear from
> http://www.zdnet.com/facebook-tweaks-terms-over-censorship-fears-4010025936/
> they do listen to their users, which is Good.
> - as is clear from
> http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112551484/lack-of-participation-makes-facebook-privacy-policy-vote-non-binding/
> the vote would only have been binding if 90,000% of respondents would have
> voted against the change.
>
> 90,000% > 100% so that is impossible. the thing about the vote being
> binding was a farce. You are right in saying i cannot guess their
> intentions.

This is nonsense. The terms says that the results of the vote are not
binding unless 30% of the active users voted. The vote is triggered when
a change has had enough respondents. So there's two different phases
here.

Now, Wikipedia does not have such a vote in the terms, nor does twitter,
nor does any other service we've rated. Only Facebook has such a vote.
Ok, the vote is not binding in most cases, but that means that above the
threshold, the vote IS binding. So that's still more positive than
wikipedia, twitter or others etc.

You can say the vote is a farce. I can say the fact that there's even a
vote in some cases is already a very interesting thing.

Now, let's not forget Facebook's a business. They have a right to set
their own policy, just like we have a right to refuse it. But we don't
have a right to impose our view on them. The fact that they're giving us
such a right with a vote can only be welcomed positively.

> a company that does something like this by mistake, without intention,
> would apologize afterwards and correct it. Since it looks like they did not
> do that, it seems safe to me to conclude that it was intentionally made
> impossible for the vote to be binding.

The vote is binding when more than 30% of active users voted. What an
active user means is defined in the terms. So it's not impossible for
the vote to be binding. Just highly unrealistic. That doesn't change the
previous argument.

> Now there is nothing wrong with requesting feedback and doing a non-binding
> vote. But we should not give them points for the vote being binding,
> because in practice, it is not - a 90,000% threshold is mathematically
> impossible to reach.

That's not why we gave them a green score of 20:
        You can give your feedback before changes
       
        Facebook has a recent practice to solicit your feedback during
        the 3 or 7 days minimum preceding changes to their terms.
        However, the results are not binding unless 30% of the active
        users voted.

> as to the insulting nature ("taking the mickey" as i called it in my post),
> i guess that's too subjective to be included in the review, but that does
> not make it less true. :)
>
> so all in all, i agree with the way it's currently reflected on
> http://tos-dr.info/index.html#facebook :

OK.
Re: [tosdr:1101] Re: [bad] Re: [Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS Hugo Roy 11/16/12 2:16 AM
Le vendredi 16 novembre 2012 à 11:01 +0100, Hugo Roy a écrit :
> > so all in all, i agree with the way it's currently reflected on
> > http://tos-dr.info/index.html#facebook :
>
> OK.

Just made a minor change. This is not a customary practice, but this is
a legal requirement in the terms. So the wording could create confusion.
The change should appear tomorrow on the live website.

Best,
Re: [tosdr:1101] Re: [bad] Re: [Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS Michiel de Jong 11/16/12 2:32 AM
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Hugo Roy <hu...@fsfe.org> wrote:
> Now, let's not forget Facebook's a business. They have a right to set
> their own policy, just like we have a right to refuse it. But we don't
> have a right to impose our view on them.

i don't agree with that, i feel we have a fundamental right to protest
('right' in the moral sense, not sure if this right actually exists in
any country's laws). i guess that makes me a unionist :)

but i see your point.

> The fact that they're giving us such a right with a vote can only be welcomed positively.

i also don't agree with that, the thing about it being binding if 300
million people across the globe send the same complaint, which will
never happen of course - and they know that, is not neutral to me,
it's like them laughing at us. sure, they have a legal right to laugh
at us, and it's not something we can easily put into an objective
review point, so i see your point, but i'm just saying personally i do
not "welcome it positively" when a company makes fun of its users like
that. the only part i welcome positively is that in practice they
actually do listen to whatever feedback they get, that's the positive
part. the part about the imaginary global vote is not positive, it's
insulting.
Re: [Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS al...@equenext.com 12/5/12 5:33 AM

They are trying to remove this statement from ToS right now (voting ends December 10), and as for now 89% of voted users are against it, so... let's see how it turns out.
Re: [tosdr:1204] Re: [Good] Facebook sollicited public feedback before launching new ToS Hugo Roy 4/30/13 8:30 AM
We have to update that. Any volunteer?
--
Hugo Roy, Project Lead
Terms of Service; Didn't Read | www.tosdr.org