|
|
|
|
|
|
by bobthechef
1897 days ago
|
|
|
The problem with this interpretation is that valid contracts depend, among other things, on informed consent and on the legality of what's being required, meaning you can't trick someone into being bound to terms they never really accepted or sufficiently understood and you can't bind them to illegal terms. In this case, most people haven't read the Facebook terms of service and it is probably unreasonable to expect everyone to not only read them, but to keep abreast of any updates. So it's a grey area. And if you pass laws and regulations around data privacy, then FB won't be able to legally impose such conditions. But as I said earlier, there isn't much inertia behind data privacy. Nobody with power wants it. |
|
|
Yes, and they also depends on power dynamics.
That's why there are a lot of restrictions on what can be written in a contract between public utilities and users. An electricity provider could strong-arm users into signing draconian contracts otherwise.
Social networks have the same negative externalities: if most of your friends move from using emails to using Facebook to communicate and you are not on it your life gets provably worse. You are cut out from a lot of your social circle.
Having walled-garden social networks is anti-competitive by design.
Unfortunately legislators turn a blind eye to this.