Reading the fine print
February 20th, 2009 at 07:15am Jennie Pollock
Web sites, just like ours, have terms of service.
Let’s just say Facebook changed its “TOS,” setting off a frenzy of people worried that Big Bro declared the right to own their content forevermore. An L.A. Times story puts it this way:
In this case, users weren’t content to hand Facebook the rights to their personal data. They also were unsatisfied by a (CEO Mark) Zuckerberg blog post Monday that many thought amounted to “just trust us.” Users carried out their protests on the website, using the tools Facebook provides for posting blog entries and rallying around causes.
Facebook since has pulled back while it considers what to do next.
I found pretty good points of view from the New York Times.
A pretty good summary of what has happened is here, as well as a lesson. See below.
… why would anybody pay more attention to Facebook’s terms of service than to the other contracts we casually accept? Who reads the roughly 17,500-word “terms and conditions” contract governing Apple’s iTunes Store before buying a song? Who digests Microsoft’s nearly 5,500-word license for Windows Vista before booting up a new PC?
For that matter, how many home buyers read in full the terms of their mortgages before signing stacks of settlement documents?
A company might be understood, if not forgiven, for thinking that people have gotten out of the habit of reading contracts.
Not for the first time, Facebook has learned otherwise. The company, however, can scrape some good out of this debacle by setting a better example.
It’s started things off well by prominently flagging its changed terms of use in a headline atop users’ home pages. The company is also inviting users to contribute to the next set of terms; the group Facebook set up for that purpose drew more than 30,000 users in the first 12 hours.
But their input shouldn’t be limited to providing ideas that Facebook can grind into the usual legalistic sludge. The company should post a draft of its next terms for members to work over.
Wired offers another lesson:
The way through is clear. Craft the legalese to protect the website, but include the comic book version of Moby Dick. Make it very clear what happens when and if someone quits. And regardless, users should know that anything that gets put up on Facebook is likely to survive whatever deletion the site might honestly undertake in hindsight — it’s the nature of the internet to remember the worst.
And perhaps more importantly, sites need make it easy for people to delete everything if they so choose. Few will, but giving the option prevents posts like the Consumerist’s from turning into a tedious three-day media affair.
P.S. Loved this headline: “About-Facebook…”
Entry Filed under: Terms of service, Social networking, Web sites
1 Comment Add your own
1. the dude abides | February 20th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
[[Warning: Completely Unrelated Comment Ahead…]]
Can anyone on your staff explain the rationale/criteria behind allowing or disallowing comments on stories? Example: You allowed comments on the Richard Wanke murder story, but not the one about the recent 6 teens/gang murder. Of course, when I posted a comment about the discrepancy, the Wanke story’s comments were promptly turned off — not exactly what I was aiming for.
If you’re only going to allow comments on the most mundane of story topics, how much discussion do you expect to stimulate? Do you think people really want take the time to discuss the day’s weather report, or proper sitting techniques? Of course not! They want to discuss the hot-button issues. So how much are you “involving your community” when the message you’re sending is, “We only want your opinion/discussion on boring, non-controversial stories.”
I guess the overarching question is: Why do you have comments? What exactly is your aim? If it’s truly meant to encourage reader participation, to really connect with your customers, you’re going to have to take the good with the bad — which means doing a fair amount of monitoring. If it’s meant to increase page views, it would behoove you to allow comments on the more complicated/touchy stories. If it’s none of the above, let me know what it is. Really, it’s not the decision to disallow comments, but the lack of transparency/clarity on the “comments policy” that disappoints me.
[[Warning: Completely Unsolicited Two Cents Ahead:]]
As a reader, your unclear (or completely non-existent) policy on how and when you solicit feedback says a few things to me:
You’re willing to increase page views by having a comments section, but you’re unwilling/unable to monitor their content, and that transparency is an outdated journalistic quality that I should no longer expect.
I actually asked this question a year ago (to your managing editor, Doug Gass) and he responded with a dismissive, “There have been no guarantees that every item posted to rrstar.com will have comments available.”
I know there’s no guarantees. I know there’s other venues for feedback. We can still send letters to the editor, etc etc. But it’s much more likely that when you make it difficult, people will just go elsewhere to discuss — craigslist, independent message boards, etc.
I know this is a new playing field, and that you’re struggling to find your place. I understand it’s difficult (and somewhat dangerous) to open up your site to every yahoo with a keyboard and an opinion.
What I don’t know is what you’re thinking.
What’s your goal for “community involvement?” What is the policy?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed