BoomTown Decodes the Zuckerberg Terms of Service My-Bad Memo (Now With 10 Percent More “So Very Sorrys!”)
by Kara Swisher
Posted on February 18, 2009 at 2:21 AM PT
Under cover of darkness last night, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on the social-networking site’s blog that it would “return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”
Oh, this is just too good to resist. Therefore, BoomTown shall not tarry in our ongoing job of busting the chops of the young Facebook leader, whose minions have actually–and I am not joking here–given him the nickname: The Wizard.
Well, the Wizard obviously had to pull back the curtain last night and show some serious mea culpa to the people, before they got out the pitchforks.
That’s due to the controversy Facebook has been embroiled in this week about changes it recently made to its Terms of Service that gave the company unusually sweeping rights over customers’ content and privacy.
While Zuckerberg had said in his first post about the issue that Facebook was not in the content-stealing business, the strong language in the ToS sent the usual suspects into a major meltdown over the possibility that the young geek had gone into full-scale evil mogul mode.
As if!
In fact, Zuckerberg has been ensconced in his Silicon Valley lair for years now, counting down until he knows precisely everything about everyone’s drunken college days!
Until D-Day then, here is my translation of his latest backtracking post:
What the Wizard wrote: Update on Terms
by Mark Zuckerberg
Today at 10:17 pm
Translation: OK, I have reached my limit of being yelled at by Sheryl and Elliot, have had my usual breakfast of Red Bull and Frosted Flakes–they’re grrreat!–and am ready to eat some major digital crow this morning.
I mean, night, which is my morning, because I actually slept through all this noise today about this whole Terms of Service “controversy.”
What the Wizard wrote: A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.
Translation: Did you know crow is delicious if you eat it with a little Bosco on top?
More to the point, I would just like to assure you that we have taken our lawyers–who idiotically rewrote our ToS to give us ownership rights to the Bible, “American Idol” and everything Bill O’Reilly utters–and sent them over to our friends at MySpace, because their owner, News Corp. (NWS), already owns two of those three [and also this site!].
What the Wizard wrote: Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input.
Translation: As in: More yelling by Sheryl and Elliott and more Fedexing of lawyers to MySpace HQ in Beverly Hills.
But after we calmed down, we all decided the best course of action was to shoot ourselves in the right foot to stop the bleeding from when we shot our left foot before.
We are, of course, completely out of feet now, so if these hijinks continue, sooner or later, someone is going to lose an eye. By someone, I mean, um, me.
What the Wizard wrote: Going forward, we’ve decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don’t plan to leave it there for long.
Translation: Facebook, of course, never had any intention of stealing content and copyright! Perish the thought! After all, that’s the job of Google (GOOG)!
By contrast, ours is to collect incredibly embarrassing photos of everyone in the United States until one of them runs for president, and then our nefarious scheme to control the world begins.
We were planning on blackmailing the world for one billllliiiion dollars then, but Microsoft kind of forked over 15 times that without any pressure.
Still, we would like to own Palo Alto, Calif., and get free parking 24/7, so there will be demands!
Until then, enjoy the sheep-throwing. Mwaahahahahahahaha! (Quick visual: I am petting my white cat right now with Ernst Stavro Blofeld-like evil glee, and am, of course, cackling.)
What the Wizard wrote: More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren’t just a document that protect our rights; it’s the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service.
Translation: Not to be completely and utterly arrogant or anything, but we just passed Pakistan, and those Brazilians better get ready to samba.
By the way, once we get to No. 1–look out, China!–we plan on decreeing that everyone in the world speak Pig Latin and that forthwith it will be flip-flop Fridays.
Also: Esyay, Iway amway anway alienway omfray anotherway anetplay.
What the Wizard wrote: Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we’ll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms.
Translation: Ybay ethay ayway, “Otay Ervesay Anmay”? It’sway away ookbookcay.
In other words, I am sure you will make delicious contributions, after which Facebook will “invite” you to our world-wide HQ to share in a lovely meal.
Especially those Winklevii. I look forward to the twins coming by soon!
What the Wizard wrote: You have my commitment that we’ll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few weeks. In the meantime, we’ve changed the terms back to what existed before the February 4th change, which was what most people asked us for and was the recommendation of the outside experts we consulted.
Translation: To my credit, I did give in much quicker than with the Beacon ad snafu. And you thought I learned nothing during that debacle!
And, by outside experts, I mean Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer, who yells much, much louder than Sheryl or Elliot combined.
What the Wizard wrote: If you’d like to get involved in crafting our new terms, you can start posting your questions, comments and requests in the group we’ve created–Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. I’m looking forward to reading your input.
Translation: Here’s my first pass, based on the U.S. Bill of Rights, Amendment I:
Facebook shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition Faebook for a redress of grievances.*
*Exceptway, ithway ymay ompletecay iscretionday, enwhay Iway
ecideday otherwiseway.
Follow Kara on Twitter | Follow AllThingsD on Twitter
Comments
Ok Kara, dont worry, Im not going to be your daily troll, Im actually going to stop reading and stop commenting after this.
This is your follow up post on two other posts that you wrote this week on the topic of Facebook’s TOS and in each case, you have not understood the topic.
Clearly you are in no position to be interpreting this story. I assume you have some expert critical analysis on the market to share, etc. but your writing on Twitter, Facebook and other social networks have proven that you are trying to be an expert and write about topics that you have not yet studied enough. As a result, your writings and comments stick out like a sore thumb and may have a negative effect on many people who are reading to try and understand. I assume you dont actually use Twitter or Facebook? You have never once responded to any of my comments here so I assume you are afraid of all these people with different opinions too.
Anyway, whether you are or not, your writings have been very misinformed.
Instead of the above post, perhaps it would have been more appropriate to write a post about how you advised all of your readers to chill out and just go ahead and give their stuff away to Facebook, and not worry about it, but that maybe you were being a little too jovial, objective and persuasive about that, now that you have had some time to do some reading up on it.
It is for this reason that I am going to stop reading your blog and would advise others to do so as well (unless you are here just for the empty snark).
The other thing I would like to point out is that most of the stories you cover here are bandwagon stories (e.g. you find a topic on the home page of Techmeme, and then jump in with your personal opinion).
While it may seem like a good way to build up an audience (being a techmeme sucker fish), you will need to make a compelling argument for why we should come here to read your articles instead of everyone elses.
I have seen several people comment on some of your stories before, and they do get a lot out of them. Maybe it would be helpful to go back and have a look at your process.
I will always prefer to find the Techcrunch take on the topic of the day because they are so great at explaining what the issue is and then getting right to the crux of the controversy in a way that its clear, but also they are fun too.
Here, it seems like its often just misinformed snark.
So theres some feedback. You may disagree, but hopefully it will at least be helpful to consider that there is someone out there who feels strongly enough about it to take the time to say. Right or wrong, here is an interesting comment my dad always said: you should stick to things you know best, and find others to help with the things you know less. If there is something you want to learn, you gatta dive in and participate.
And here is a translation to my comment above:
Kara doesn’t understand the argument against the Facebook Terms of Service.
Solution: Whenever someone doesn’t understand Kara, but wants to understand the topic that she is talking about, you can probably find a more straightforward approach to the story at http://www.techmeme.com
I dont want to be a troll so I’ll go. Best of luck for helping out the world in a more positive way in the future. Now is a good time to help, no hinder.
Posted by andrew baron at February 18th, 2009 at 4:55 amSo long andrew baron!
I didn’t want to be a troll at that video thing you produced, so I just went too. I think it’s the best approach (pretend I went on for three pages here telling you how misinformed you were without actually giving a single example (fawning over John Edwards)).
Now, to Kara’s possible misinformation:
Are you sure it’s “wizard”? I would have thought “lizard” might fit better.
I wouldn’t trust those people to park my car. Which I think in a few years might be what they are doing.
Posted by Mac Beach at February 18th, 2009 at 8:32 amI stopped trusting Facebook when they hired Ted Ullyot, the lawyer that served under Alberto Gonzales and was on the team that created some of the most draconian and heinous laws in the history of the United States.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/.....d-request/
He seems to be the guy behind this as well… since he’s the lawyer in charge!
Posted by Dave Esmo at February 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pmA:
Oh, dear, more silly-girl tsk-tsking from the master about my shortcomings.
Sadly, Miss Crabtree (and I emphasize the crabby part), you are not putting a dent in my self-esteem, due to your chronic inaccuracy.
First, I have been on Twitter and FB for a while now and was actually using AOL message board and the WELL when you were still in grammar school.
Second, I responded to both your comments in a previous post and I am not known for being afraid of people with different opinions.
Third, sorry I am too “jovial” for you. What can I say, except: You have no sense of humor. Pig Latin is always funny.
Fourth, please, please stop reading this blog, as it seems to cause you so much pain that you veer into fiction.
As to your bandwagon accusation: Now you have gone too far and are about as wrong as you can be. This column and this site is well-known for breaking original scoops on companies like Yahoo, Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft and more.
We do it in typical reporting style and with deep analysis and sourcing, which has been highly accurate and fair, as opposed to hand-fed Web 2.0 non-news dreck that gets regurgitated on a daily basis by too many.
You might actually have known that before your little tantrum here.
Our process, which is done with high ethical standards and journalistic practices, is really just fine, even if we do some sillier posts now and again that you don’t like.
That you “prefer to find the Techcrunch take on the topic of the day because they are so great at explaining what the issue is and then getting right to the crux of the controversy in a way that its clear” is pretty much all I need to know about what you require from your news sources.
Sorry I cannot make you laugh about TOS (btw, I covered TOS issues at both the Washington Post and the WSJ concerning AOL, eBay, Yahoo, etc etc.), so I hope you find what you are looking for somewhere else.
Posted by Kara Swisher at February 18th, 2009 at 10:22 pm