[macksd]

I was just seeing something about this on social media - @laura_horowitz_narrator was talking about it and one of the commenters claim they have backpedaled and apologized for "confusing language" but I don't find the language confusing at all. If you're a lawyer and you're modifying an existing document to state these terms, what else could you possibly be meaning?

[ziddoap]

Public-relation spin like that is almost as despicable as the original terms themselves.

The quoted clause, as you stated, was absolutely perfectly clear! There was no vagueness or room for confusion. They covered every possible way that they now have full control over the authors works.

The next draft will probably just have more legalese, and be spread out over multiple clauses of their already long (~7500 word) terms of service so that it's harder to point at it and say "gross".

[nusl]

Their apology is more of a "Sorry, we'll find a way to screw you in an unmodified way but we'll make sure that you idiots will cry less about it this time."

Or they'll introduce softer changes, let everyone kinda chill out a bit, then clamp down on the same changes again when it's harder to move off-platform and users have little choice but to agree.

[avgcorrection]

We tried to rip you off but you called us out. We’re sorry about that.

[montjoy]

Meta wanted more LLM training data from us and we caved. Whoopsie.