Many of us post to Facebook, perhaps unaware of what can happen to that content and who has rights to it. All of this came to a head a few days ago, as Facebook’s new terms of service (TOS) came to light and were met with a range of reactions from dismay to outrage.
I’ve been reading Convergence Culture and being in Jane Jacob’s adopted home, I couldn’t help but think of how the social space of Facebook relates to how social interactions are shaped by governance and polity in online realms, as well as the idea of a commons that is a privatized space, as opposed to a public one.
While I’m resigned to the fact that there is no privacy online and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I hear that Facebook is being used by collections departments to locate unstealthy credit defaulters (true story), I do bristle at the idea of content being appropriated by companies hosting these web commons.
Why? I’m using the private space of Facebook, why should I feel that what I post is still my intellectual property? Am I being unreasonable? After all, I push the boundaries of fair use quite a bit.
Can social network sites really be sites of democratic action, when they can ultimately be censored, not as a matter of public policy, but rather corporate TOS? On the other side of the Web 2.0 fence, how much freedom should an organization grant users?
I feel that what any site engaging in Web 2.0 should do if they want to use content posted by users is…to simply ask them for permission. It’s simple good manners and building of social capital. I do think privatized social spaces or commons can be used for civic engagement, but I find emerging technologies being developed up here in Canada that allow content to be fed from multiple sites (e.g., MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) into one location to be rather interesting. More on this in a future post. I feel the overlap of Web 2.0 with open source will make us all rethink ownership and privacy and force organizations to ponder what intellectual property really means, what the risks are in terms of what the courts are stating, and how to implement processes. Or not. That devil inertia.
Comments 8
rkatclu — February 19, 2009
These are very timely questions.
When so much content is delivered through private channels (rather than public spaces) it raises some very real concerns about the future of free speech and censorship.
Recently the iPhone store rejected an a game where you threw virtual shoes at Bush. Their rationale? Apple's TOS gives them discretion to refuse "content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users." Unfortunately, with this lowered standard (compared to free speech law as it applies to the government), pretty much anything can be censored if someone finds it "objectionable."
Also, about asking permission, many corporations seem to think that stipulations in the TOS are sufficient, even if - as with Facebook - the terms can be changed at whim. In my personal opinion, TOS do not do a very good job of respecting consumer/user interests. Funny illustration: http://xkcd.com/501/
Molly — February 21, 2009
When I signed up for Facebook, I remember clicking some "I agree" button to a pages and pages of terms I didn't read. Technically I am responsible for everything it says, but frankly I don't really care. I think it is almost sad how quickly I will click the “I agree” button on a website, but who really wants to read those things? I do not have the intention of putting up anything embarrassing or illegal on my profile, so I am fine with what the website wants to do with the information they legally own. It is not reasonable to think Facebook would keep everything I do private and protected. I assume the website would get sued or change its policies if there were something completely horrible, but that is an extreme exception and overall I ignore many TOS. Obviously Facebook has come under heat for modifying its terms of service and I agree with Professor Kambara's analysis that they simply should have asked. I agreed to the first contract but that means nothing about the second. It probably wouldn't have changed my mind or many others for that matter, but the most important part is there must be the option. Overall, it is good that people are outraged and that this topic is getting publicity. Hopefully this will make people think about what they say the next time they post on a wall or put up a picture. The way I see it, if you are dumb enough to put up something incriminating or likewise you should have to deal with the consequences.
Andrew Paster — February 21, 2009
As stated above, corporations will find ways out of asking permission of their users. By clicking that "I agree" button, or checking some little box, a company such as facebook already has your permission to do as they please. They can delete photos they don't approve of, and use what ever else you display at their convenience. They should ask (as most people don't realize what they display can be used by others), however there is no way to make them. If you are scared of something being used against your will, don't post it. Since Facebook is taken almost as serious as life outside of it, think about what you would do in public and decide if you would want everyone to see it.
Jennifer — February 22, 2009
I am happy to know that the TOS change received some publicity because it is indirectly raising awareness among users of these free networks. Essentially they are becoming aware that they aren't necessarily free. Now, for the real question her. . . Can internet really be a place for political activity although the company or organization can censor particular information?? This is not an easy yes or no question. Because there are forums where you can become active socially and politically and avoid being "censored". However, these sites are usually virtual public arenas of groups with similar interest so the chances of a comment being offensive to another user is low. If your participating in a network with heterogeneity your opinion may offend others and therefore not be expressed as it may be censored. Online networks are not too different from "real life" there are places where you can express yourself freely while there are situations where you bit your tongue in order to avoid being ostracized by others and/or censored. I think the main point which I am trying to reach is that the internet is heterogeneous in nature but you can place yourself in homogeneous situations where your voice can be posted and you are not at risk for censorship. large heterogeneous networks want to keep all their customers happy this comes at a price , because both sides may be toned down in order to keep everyone happy and avoid rocking the boat.
I think that organizations must become apolitical and allow their users to express themselves freely.(of course censor explicit photography and offensive comments.. anti-X or hate comments)
Kris W — February 22, 2009
What seems problematic to me, is that if someone you know post a picture of you, it cant be deleted. Its all great that you are responsible and suffer the consequences of uploading a picture of your choice, but if someone else adds a picture of you, it changes. However, this is not something that can be efficiently regulated or enforced.
A big problem with the idea of asking for permission for pictures and other information, is that by accepting the TOS you have often already given your permission and since most people, like me, doesn't read the TOS carefully(or at all), rules like this can always be put in place.
Yeraldy — February 22, 2009
Web 2.0 allows for so much more interaction online, whether it be political, social, or for civic engagement. This interaction leads for people to share any type of information they desire online. People share vast amounts of personal information online that would seem like private matters online and all this can be manipulated and used by the corporations you sign your data to. If it's Facebook or Myspace, the corpration has ownership of everything you post. When I'm on Facebook, ads say "Scholarships for Political Science students." They're selling my information in order to market to me.
People don't think about what it is they're sharing and how it can be used against them. With all the hackers today, anyone can access any photograph or information you post about yourself. Do you really think about the potential consequences of everything you post? Even this blog post can later be used against you.
I personally don't always read the fine print and neither do many others. As we don't care about what we're posting, we are even less likely to read the entire fine print.
Mike — February 23, 2009
I am happy to see that someone is actually reading the TOS. As stated above, who really wants to read those things? Maybe this will probably change my/our outlook on what we are really agreeing to in the future.
While I do not believe what you post on a social network is totally private I do believe that you should not be able to use it as you wish with no permission. I am like a customer that is using your service you provide, but when I cancel or stop the use of the service they should not be allowed to continue to keep or use my property at their disposal.
The social networks and Web 2.0 is becoming less and less private, but it is up to us to ask the question of, “What do I want EVERYONE to know?” It is our choice and our decisions of becoming more responsible to what we post, not the job of the network to decided what is private for you.
Brent — February 23, 2009
It shouldn't be any surprise that a website like facebook wants to be as profitable as possible. Selling the information that the user willingly displayed is a part of a long history of corporations doing such. The thing is, you can use this website for social networking and not put up sensitive information of pictures. Not only that, but it really becomes such a problem, than users will find another website that doesn't engage in such practices and its accumulates profits in another way. People also have to be cogent of what they put out into the public space. Just like what you do in real life, what you place on networking sites can affect your reputation