“Facebook has no intention of using your material or selling it or asserting ownership rights and you know it. If Time Warner uploads a movie someday, do you actually think Facebook is going to claim ownership?”

What makes you so sure about it? What if its not a company like Time Warner but some other small company which is not at eye level with Facebook?

To me Facebook is a platform and they have to find other ways to gain revenues. Obiously, it’s not advertising but it shouldn`t be mash ups out of my stuff either.

I don’t agree with you and your only argument is that I am some stupid girl who does not know squat, except to say snarky things.

Now, I see the genesis of Rocketboom, that bastion of high quality journalism!

I have written about Facebook almost since its existence, have spent a ton of time reporting on the company and, unlike you, actually breaking news stories on its efforts. How much reporting do you do? None, I would bet.

Before that I covered digital issues for the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and wrote two books on the topic.

Frankly, I’d go with me over your rants any day, but I am biased.

But, of course, I am some dumb lady who needs you to explain it all for me!

My point about the copyright is that Facebook was never going to take people’s content and they never would have. They made a dumb error in changing the TOS and changed it back. It was not some plot to get the stellar video vault of Rocketboom.

The post above was primarily about privacy or lack thereof in the social networking space and you can twist it all you like to suit your needs, but please try to be accurate.

I never said whether FB should or should not backtrack. I was making a point, with some jokes that you clearly don’t like, about privacy.

As to the four posts: It is really none of your business what I choose to post on. But please, I beg you, don’t read anymore, as it is clearly causing you pain.

Kara, I hope you have a lawyer look over your contracts before you sign them.

“You’re just making a lot of noise over what will be a straw man issue. That is very irresponsible of you, but makes for some very flame-throwing assertions!”

Irresponsible!!! YOU POSTED 4 blog posts on this!!!! Why did Zuckerburg change the terms back then? There must of been a reason that you were not concerned about.

And now you know Im upset about your blog- because you dont have command of the subject, but you insist that you do.

I’ve never understood the whole debate about online privacy unless everyone has a lot to hide. Obviously I don’t want my passwords or usernames given out, but just by posting here, aren’t I exposing myself, a blog, my thoughts on this subject? Which are then, in turn free for use by AllThingsD? Can’t they use comments to learn about readers?

They do it with your IP address (by tracking what brought you to the site, how you navigated through it, where you went after), or at least they could. Is that wrong.

Funny, cause before coming to this post (thanks for the Tweet about it), I actually had a different opinion on Facebook’s recently-reversed claims about privacy. Now though, I have to agree with Kara.

I’m fine with sites using my info for marketing purposes–mostly cause I work in marketing communications. The risk is what’s to stop them from looking at truly private items? The true “big brother” way of looking into our lives? I guess though that the same argument that applies to bad TV shows applies to online privacy. If you don’t like it, turn the channel or shut it off.