[nathanb]

Some language in the post I found interesting:

> The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question.

Note that he doesn't say "we won't use your photos as part of an advertisement", he merely says "the reason we're removing that language is because we don't [currently] plan on using your photos as part of an advertisement".

I'm sure if they thought of a way they could make money by doing so without losing critical mass, they'd be all over that.

[jka]

It's a science fiction idea I think, but something that would also fly, given their statements, would be to show photos of people who look like your friends (Facebook have the machine learning / pattern matching capability) in order to influence your decisions; someone who looks like a great crush you had, dining at a nearby restaurant, for example.

This would neither necessarily fit into the classification of 'advertising', nor be showing photos to 'your friends', who would immediately call this kind of behaviour out. This would sorta tally with the fact that photos are public by default AFAIK, and the comments about privacy.

Hopefully irrelevant, but just a thought.

[jka]

Hmm. Or worse.. http://www.thelocal.se/45142/20121218/#.UNBmPUKjC2w

[marshray]

I like how he said "The language we proposed ... " to refer to "Yesterday we introduced a new version of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that will take effect in thirty days."

[loceng]

Nor "at this time" doesn't mean they can't and won't add this later anyhow. This is damage control, though damage has been done.

[tedunangst]

He also doesn't say he's going to stop beating his wife.

[merlincorey]

She hasn't said she doesn't consent or request it.

[jneen]

This is why I wish I had downvote privileges. This is a) off-topic, and b) extremely offensive. Please stop.

[antoko]

Its neither off-topic nor offensive, and because you don't have downvote privileges you had to comment instead - that's good because now I can respond and hopefully clarify.

It isn't off-topic because it is a direct response to it's parent who was trying to make a point by example that refers to this use of rhetoric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

It isn't offensive because it is simply using the loaded question to provide a loaded answer that uses the exact same rhetorical trick to turn the tables. To try to show by example that the point being made is little more than a trick.

It is the nature of a loaded question with an obvious appeal to emotion that makes responses to it seem offensive.

[sk5t]

It's a time-weathered rhetorical device, and probably wouldn't be effective if it weren't also somewhat offensive. Although responding to the device is... unusual.

[bentruyman]

Of course. It would be silly to speak in absolutes like that and not leaving certain advertising opportunities on the table for the future.