Facebook adds one more reason to hate advertising
This whole new viral advertising model that Facebook has come out with has presented us with the best way to cull friends out of our friends list. If any of them get me involved in a horrific campaign to flog crap, then they have debased themselves to the lowest of the low, and will be purged. This is going to cause problems for people who have a few thousand friends in Facebook, can you imagine the deluge of advertising that is going to happen if two or three friends all decide that the latest and greatest is what really needs to be shared? And then thousands of your friends follow suit, the whole thing could eventually swamp every user of Facebook, let alone facebooks servers.
A nice viral campaign that takes out facebooks servers, that ought to be interesting.
The real kicker is the third component. It essentially collects the data from the first two components (keeping user info anonymous, of course) and provides it to a given business to assist in its targeted advertising objectives. For instance, a user who goes to Coke’s page and interacts with or installs its viral app (”Sprite Sips”) can pretty much expect to become a shill — inserting all sorts of branding messages and endorsements into friends’ News Feeds. Source: Wired
Another interesting take comes from Info/Law at Harvard.
Realistically, if this does not swear you off of Facebook then literally nothing else will. But then it will also be interesting to know that our friends drink code, smoke cigarettes, lead generally unhealthy lives, and that nothing beats a triple whopper with cheese, extra mayo hold the vegetables.
What were they thinking?
Do we want to know this, is this important?
On the flip side of this, with the crowding of ads on MySpace making the experience unique if not unhealthy for people, add the application spamming systems of Facebook to that unhealthy mix, this might be the chance for BeBo to take advantage of this dynamic and come out with a killer boffo site that does not inflict intentional advertising based injury on its users.
Catch that statement “The infliction of intentional advertising based injury on its users”. Someone is going to come up with a class action on this one. Honestly officer, we couldn’t separate content from advertising, and yes, we clicked on 1000 links on that web site, we really didn’t mean to spam our friends and family.
I am indeed grateful to hear about this law.
What many also bring up with this topic is the changes of Terms of Service and how many of these websites state in their agreements that one agrees automatically to any changes of service by agreeing to the terms.
BUT… If I remember correctly - One party is unable to Unilaterally change the terms of a contract or service agreement without first obtaining the other parties consent before doing so.
How would anyone know when to check a website so that they are aware of any changes have been implemented? and if they don’t agree with them, then what? Are they now able to Remove their information? are they able to leave that site as clean and clear as the day they went to it?
I know for a Personal fact that is not always the case. Yes, indeed, I am grateful of hearing about this law. There is a commercial site in NY, that is holding my Name and all of my comments hostage. I have NO access to any of MY information, (I am unable to View or respond to the Majority of my comments and data); Which also means that there is no ability to respond to disparaging comments regarding my professional identity. I have NO access to my forum Members. Most importantly my name is being used without my permission.
I asked them to remove, and they stated it was an inconvenience to them, but that they would be willing to “edit” several of my 8 years of posts for me, quoting their current TSA. What gives? They even are willing to EDIT my posts for me?
When I joined the network, the terms of Service was indeed not the same as it is today.. I was not aware of any changes to the TSA, was not alerted, and the only time that I became aware of the damaging consequences was after the damages were in effect.
What is really of interest is that The TSA also states that an individual is allowed to disable their account at anytime.. but, unfortunately I am not allowed the same privilege.. so, what gives??
And today, they say that they have Non Exclusive Rights to my material, Yet then say they have full exclusive rights.. Quite Ambiguous No????
Sometimes these laws may seem unfair to some, but, there are many TSA’s that also attempt take away the rights of the original authors, or the individuals who want to be able to control not only their Content, but their Name as well. Should we not have that right?
Most individuals don’t realize the extent or even the problems that can occur when we randomly say Yes, I accept these agreements.
Oh, and many think we can just sue, well, if one can find an attorney who is wiling to do it, it can cost a pretty penny!
Karen M