Two edged sword of users’ rights
User’s Rights are a two-edged sword.
Do we do exactly what they want, or insist that once content is put “out there” - it can’t be controlled, and thus, you lose control over it - and can’t rescind it?
Its more than just email messages or shared photos. This is about who is in charge. When users leave a system, their content should be deleted, except if it was part of a “conversation” - where others contributed as well.
I agree with that - and Zuckerberg’s goals.
And if I put ‘access controls’ on my content, those controls should work - outside the Firewall which enabled me to place them onto this content. But we don’t have agreement on interoperability on access controls.
But what happens when my content gets out there and someone downloads it? The system which established the access controls no longer has the ability to limit it’s access.
So net-net is drunken teenager puts up photos of himself in compromsing positions (as my son seems to be doing allot of lately) and someone DOWNLOADs those images - well then - it ain’t our fault.
But needless to say Facebook’s lawyer blew it, and we’re gonna need to establish netique and an honor system when it comes ot respecting user’s wishes.
Cause technology can’t do it all.
IMHO
Although I’m all in favor of mixing any lawyer, honey and flesh-eating ants in the same sentence, I don’t think they blew it. Their intentions were to “protect” their customers, with more of less the same consequences than the father of a 16 y.o. demanging that he sits through each party his daughter attends. Those who blew it, are the judges who haven’t treated these ToS for what they are, and the legislator/consumer advocates (depending whether you live in Europe/USA) who never set up rules saying that a service with a significant number of users had to go through a review of their ToS.
The problem with usual monopolies is not that they make money, it’s that the market mechanisms don’t prevent them from “protecting” their margins by raising prices. We need a Sharman act for free, information-based services.
Although I’m all in favor of mixing any lawyer, honey and flesh-eating ants in the same sentence, I don’t think they blew it. Their intentions were to “protect” their customers, with more of less the same consequences than the father of a 16 y.o. demanging that he sits through each party his daughter attends. Those who blew it, are the judges who haven’t treated these ToS for what they are, and the legislator/consumer advocates (depending whether you live in Europe/USA) who never set up rules saying that a service with a significant number of users had to go through a review of their ToS.
The problem with usual monopolies is not that they make money, it’s that the market mechanisms don’t prevent them from “protecting” their margins by raising prices. We need a Sharman act for free, information-based services.