Facebook retracts Terms of Use change

Following concerns raised by users and consumer advocates, Facebook announced late Tuesday night it would retract a controversial change in its Terms of Use policy.

But Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company’s changes might not be permanent, adding a “for now” in his announcement.

The recent change had granted Facebook unprecedented ownership of its users’ content and allowed the site discretion on how to use that content, even if users were to delete their accounts.

But the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center says a complaint it was set to submit to the Federal Trade Commission sealed the deal.

When the consumer advocacy research center found out about the changes online Monday, it began preparing a complaint to the FTC that would ask Facebook to go back to the old terms to protect consumers, said Lillie Coney, associate director at the center.

“Then (Facebook) contacted us, letting us know that they were in the process of seriously rethinking the change, and they announced this morning that they had wanted to go back to the old terms,” Coney said Wednesday, adding that companies like Facebook “have been trying to figure out how to monetize data.”

Zuckerberg posted on the company’s blog late Tuesday night, saying that going back to the old 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,” Zuckerberg wrote. “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.”

Coney said the problem was Facebook had not made it clear that the terms had changed, which was unfair to users.

“The people who create the content on their Facebook pages are the authors of that content,” Coney said. “You have a right to your original work, and that needs to be protected. ... Consumers exercising their rights online – this is a good day for them.

They have the ability to reorganize themselves and make their views heard in this environment. The other thing I think that’s good is that Facebook listens.”

Coney said she thinks Facebook made a mistake in changing the terms but added that she didn’t expect a formal apology.

“We didn’t expect for them to come out and say, ‘We made a mistake, we shouldn’t have done it.’ They do what companies do,” Coney said. “It moves the ball back to where people were when they decided to share information and use that service.”

Facebook will now turn to its users to help update a new Terms of Use policy that will clearly describe how users share and control their information, Zuckerberg wrote.

Facebook users have previously influenced company decisions. Following user complaints in 2007, Facebook revised its Beacon program, which allowed Facebook users to share what they do on the Web with other users.

“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,” Zuckerberg wrote. “Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service.”

Students like sophomore Beth Kopp said most of Facebook’s users, especially students, are probably “not always aware of the legalities of what you’re signing up for.”

Senior Toby Lawhon said he was reassured the terms were being switched back. He said he suspected since Facebook’s service relies on users, they had to follow suit.

“They seem to be influenced by outcries like that,” Lawhon said. “I feel like that’s kind of a big deal – changing terms of service without telling anyone.”

Anthony Fargo, associate professor of communications law at the IU School of Journalism, said he thinks it’s still somewhat unclear why the terms were changed, but he said he thinks it might have been a form of clarification.

“If they were trying to clarify, they did it a little clumsily,” Fargo said.

Fargo said the clarification could be about the issue of not being able to control what you post online.

But Fargo said the original change seemed to be more of an ethical issue. He said he doesn’t think users would have become as upset if Facebook warned users about the changes before they happened.

“If they were going to change things, why do so secretly?” Fargo said. “It makes people think you’re trying to gain some kind of power.”

– Staff writer Alex Benson contributed to this report.