[原文] Amanda L. French – http://amandafrench.net/…compared/
[译文] coolnalu – http://www.kunalu.com/blog/2009/02/24/facebook-tos-…twitter/

根据作者授权，译文与原文都以创作共用许可发表。

2009年2月16日 – 2:28 pm

随着今天网民对Facebook新修改的服务条款的愤怒达到极点，我认为我应该简要的将其服务条款中用户上传内容的部分与其他人际网络站点做个对比，以事实来验证所谓的愤怒是不是合理的。例如上次网民千夫所指布什的robots.txt文件好像并不太合乎情理，而我却帮助散播了此事，有些负罪感。

这次这个事件的结论？ 继续愤怒下去吧。Facebook对用户上传内容表现得极为贪婪和傲慢。以下是我的详细分点讨论：

1. Facebook显然想在你把你的东西从网站上删除后依然维持他们对用户内容拥有的全部权利；他们从条款上移除了原有的几行“用户内容删除后他们对用户上传内容的权利将终止。” 没有别的网站，至少我这里要比较的那些，能想到做这样的事情; 大多情况下他们特别指出，他们对用户上传内容的权利将于用户删除内容或删除帐号之时结束。
2. 第二个变动最要命:Facebook声称，一旦你在你的网页上放上“到Facebook上分享”字样的链接，他们就可以任意处置你网页里的内容。尽我所知，这个条款令人难以置信并且绝无仅有。用户可以在Facebook里剪贴指向到你网页的链接，但如果你想帮用户省几个键盘操作而在你的网页上放上“到Facebook上分享”的链接或者类似功能的插件，Facebook就会声称获得了你一系列模糊的授权。我不想被Facebook算在内。
3. 其他网站在服务条款里指出，你仍然拥有你的内容：Facebook刻意没有提到这一细微的事实。 Facebook也忽略提醒用户上传内容的同时也授权了其他用户使用你的内容 — 而拿YouTube来说，就明确说明了除了YouTube以外，其他用户也有权使用，传播你上传的视频。总体来说其他网站的服务条款措辞听起来更像在帮助你。

让我们看看其他热门用户生成内容网站关于自己对用户内容所拥有的权利是怎么说的：

[Read the rest of this post ...]

Saw this mini statistics of some of the most known social network sites from TechCrunch. MySpace tops in the ranking and left the second, Facebook, whose founder is the controversial young man Mark Zuckerberg, way behind the horizontal line.

Facebook would catch up a bit in next few months, based on its announcement of open registration. Now anyone can have an account without having to be from Universities that the system recognizes.

Now, just look at these websites, most of them looks quite sketchy, in terms of graphics and interactions. Very few gradient, no round corners and other sort of refinement. Blinking advertisements eliminate all the white space and distract users.

If a normal web service, like news portal, music download, or newly lauched blogs, ever looks like that, visitors would immediately run away. However, these some millions of unique visitors, do stay on site, neglecting eye-hurting ads and keep browsing for excitement, as the sites supposed to offer.

What’s the success factor behind the scene? Technology and even Visual Appealness are not as important as they are to other websites. Without these, the only thing I can see that make MySpace successful is it allows to users to customize their own pages, to an extent that no others allow to. How many people left msnspace or still refuse to use it because of its lack of freedom of layout and template customization. And how many people feel timid being told that cannot access ones profile because the person is not in my network yet.

“…Technology and even Visual Appealness are not as important…”

MySpace removed all these constrains and allows anyone, even unregistered users to browse register users pages. Also, users can add any objects to their personal pages, YouTube, flashes, windows media player, as well as set transparency and background images etc.. To me those pages look totally unpolished and lack artful overall look. But I guess young people are tough and are able to survive and expand their life on those. Ya, so maybe the generation is fairly “realistic” actually, as contents are most important, over-emphasized decorations not neccessary. :)

Besides, I am looking forward to Facebook to grow too.

Since we entered the web2.0 era, sometime in 2006, there are accelerating number of new websites created worldwidely. Have paused reading IT “fashion” blogs for just two weeks, and now I feel like it’s a brand new space. Thousands of applications, with “beta” or not, were being worked out and released to the public, yet I have never heard of them just 2 weeks ago! What an admirable pace of evolution!

So besides many topics being discussed, I just would like to point out one of my brief observations.

Comparing to a few years ago, when everyone kinda wanted to create their own comprehensive websites, now people are getting specialized in their own interests and building helpful tools for either pure interests or profit, but no matter what, it’s a good trend. It might also be an attribute of the so called “web2.0 spirit”, as someone mentioned.