FACEBOOK'S GOING TOO FAR - SCAMMING YOUR GOVERNMENT ID PIX NOW

[VitalSigns]

"Sense of entitlement" you guys need to stop repeating every thing you hear on the news.

Actually, just stop watching the news altogether.

[Eric Perry]

Originally Posted by Big Brother

Talkbass is free too but that didn't stop you from whining about others posts on it. It strikes me as a whiny sense of entitlement to complain about what they say for free here. If you paid to use the site you would have a right to complain about the things you see on it however.

I've been here over ten years. I was a paying member for the vast majority of that.

And this is a *forum*. People share opinions thousands of times a day. It's specifically what a forum is for.

[Eric Perry]

And, as a family therapist, I've been using the phrase "sense of entitlement" for many, many years to describe children and their roles/expectations in the family system.

Has that term taken on a political connotation? Absolutely. But to make the assumption that anyone who speaks in such a manner bases it on some political affiliation shows quite the narrow-mindedness.

Oh yeah, and

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by GregC

What? I'm a confirmed lefty.....

you ARE???....(gasp)....i would never have guessed....

[Lonesomedave]

well....let's see where we are now...

we have an internet that is totally free to anybody with a computer

we have a service on that internet that is totally free to anyone with an internet connection.

said service never promised anyone that they would not change the terms and conditions for anyone using said service...and if they HAD made such a promise it would not be enforceable because of the legal theory of "no consideration given in exchange for that promise"

we have a bunch of people who have made use of that service, in some cases for years, and have never been asked by that service for one penny of payment, even though it likely costs that service a whole bunch of money to provide that service.

that service must recoup that money from somewhere, but NOT from the users.

said service also, apparently, wants to use the service to make some money for the providers.

said service has now, apparently, changed the terms and conditions for some (maybe all) users, in order to accomplish some purpose of the owners....presumably, this has something to do with the making of money, to accomplish the goals stated in the previous 2 paragraphs.

and NOW, everybody who has freeloaded off that service for years (or at least a portion of them) is up in arms because a service that they had nothing to do with creating, they have no share of the maintenance costs in, and they have no worries about the headaches involved in running & maintaining, wants to change said terms & conditions?

is that about it?

and a certain number of people engaged in this discussion does not want the term "sense of entitlement" to be a part of this discussion?

well, i ask you with all respect....what the H**L would you call it then....just askin'

because it appears that there are a substantial number of whiny little babies who are upset, don't know how ANY business works, have never run any business BUT....want to tell every business (and business owner) how they should conduct their business, and will make it clear to them if they don't toe the line.

look, if you like it, use it....if you don't like it, don't use it...if you think you could do better, start your own and run it how you want.

but i am betting that all the monday morning quarterbacking is coming from guys who have never started nor run a business, and couldn't if they wanted to....

or am i wrong?

[MarkMgibson]

This is just a discussion on a forum with people throwing out different opinions. I don't get why people are getting so upset. What's all this "sense of entitlement" crap? I tend to be on the "user beware" side, but saying "you're using the service for free" is a little simplistic. After all, how much money does FB make every year from those same users? A hell of a lot (even if it's indirectly through advertising). So why shouldn't users have a right to complain about policies? Some of you need look up the words "forum" and "debate".

And I really wish people would stop calling others "whiners", simply for expressing an opinion. I don't know a lot about this issue, and I've found this subject very interesting. Why all the name calling?

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

This is just a discussion on a forum with people throwing out different opinions. I don't get why people are getting so upset. What's all this "sense of entitlement" crap? I tend to be on the "user beware" side, but saying "you're using the service for free" is a little simplistic. After all, how much money does FB make every year from those same users? A hell of a lot (even if it's indirectly through advertising). So why shouldn't users have a right to complain about policies? Some of you need look up the words "forum" and "debate".

And I really wish people would stop calling others "whiners", simply for expressing an opinion. I don't know a lot about this issue, and I've found this subject very interesting. Why all the name calling?

"sense of entitlement" is because they are getting something for free...and it's still not good enough...some people want it for free AND want to dictate how it is delivered.

please explain to me (and i really mean this) how it is "simplistic" to remind them that they are, in fact, getting this service for free...i think that IS exactly the point. if you PAID for a service, by all means complain if it is not to your liking...but if it is free, take what you get.

as far as how much money FB makes...what business is that of anybody, except the owners? so they make a buck...since they are providing a service for free, it seems to me that the only people they should have to answer to are their shareholders.

as far as a "right to complain"...no one is taking away that right, but others have a right to express disdain for the complainers. as you pointed out, this a forum and debate of anything (within the rules of this site) is fair game. complainers have a right to complain, others have a right to criticize the complainers.

as far as calling names, well, you may very well have a point there... i don't know, BUT there has been a certain amount of that type of criticism from both sides in this debate. i mean, what do you do if you resent the fact that people take the service and then want to b***h (whine, decry, complain...you supply the verb) about what the owners choose to do with their own property.

and that's what i believe the people on the other side of this debate have yet to acknowledge....FB IS the property of the owners, not the users, and what they choose to do with it (as long as legal) is THEIR business and no one else's

or am i wrong? feel free to correct me...there will be NO hard feelings...

[MarkMgibson]

I agree with you for the most part, except when it come to retroactively changing Terms Of Service. That may be legal, but it stinks. Let's say you join a forum, and the terms of service promise that your email address, and any private information you give them to register will be kept private. So the next day, they change those rules, and suddenly your email address and info is sold to every dodgy porn site, drug company, and various nasty spam sites.

Suddenly you're getting 50 emails a day - horrible porn sites, Viagra adverts, offers for dodgy software, and other assorted crap. You can leave the site in question, but it's too late, and you end up having to close you email account and get a new one because you're being spammed to death. That exact thing happened to me, and it was a major inconvenience. Do you think that's fair? Sure, it might be "legal", but if I join a site under certain terms, why shouldn't those terms be binding? That is the very nature of a contract, is it not?

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

I agree with you for the most part, except when it come to retroactively changing Terms Of Service. That may be legal, but it stinks. Let's say you join a forum, and the terms of service promise that your email address, and any private information you give them to register will be kept private. So the next day, they change those rules, and suddenly your email address and info is sold to every dodgy porn site, drug company, and various nasty spam sites.

Suddenly you're getting 50 emails a day - horrible porn sites, Viagra adverts, offers for dodgy software, and other assorted crap. You can leave the site in question, but it's too late, and you end up having to close you email account and get a new one because you're being spammed to death. That exact thing happened to me, and it was a major inconvenience. Do you think that's fair? Sure, it might be "legal", but if I join a site under certain terms, why shouldn't those terms be binding? That is the very nature of a contract, is it not?

oh, sure...it stinks...BUT

that is my point...THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT!

to have a contract, there must be consideration (that is, payment....something of value given) on BOTH sides.

here there is decidedly none of that....the only value given is by FB...the users gave nothing and have no right to complain.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

oh, sure...it stinks...BUT

that is my point...THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT!

to have a contract, there must be consideration (that is, payment....something of value given) on BOTH sides.

here there is decidedly none of that....the only value given is by FB...the users gave nothing and have no right to complain.

Sorry, but I don't agree. You join a site (any site), and you have to agree to their Terms Of Service: you won't use their service to abuse people, or perhaps you're not allowed to advertise businesses, etc. In exchange, they promise not to sell, or share your private information. So how is that not a contract?

Your assumption that simply because a service is "free" gives you no rights is just not the case. Internet sites earn revenue due to both the amount of people that join, and the number of hits they have on their pages. That makes them profitable enterprises, and whether the site is free is not makes no difference. Increased membership mean increased revenue, so you are, in a way, paying for the service.

Nowhere in law does it say that you can't have a contract without money changing hands. It's simply an agreement between parties - nothing more.

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

oh, sure...it stinks...BUT

that is my point...THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT!

to have a contract, there must be consideration (that is, payment....something of value given) on BOTH sides.

here there is decidedly none of that....the only value given is by FB...the users gave nothing and have no right to complain.

"an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contract

Mark (which is a fantastic name by the way, truly kingly in it's air) is right. When you agree to the Terms of Use for Facebook, you're entering into a contract with them, the same as they're entering into a contract with you. Money need not be exchanged in order for a contract to be valid.

Facebook, or any company changing their Terms of Use and Service to affect things retroactively is pretty poopy, no matter which way you look at it.

Legal? Probably.
Poopy? Definitely.

[Lonesomedave]

no, i'm sorry...i am a lawyer and i am giving you the legal requirements to have a contract.

there must be consideration on both sides...ask your own lawyer if you don't believe me...what you are talking about is a promise that is not backed up by consideration. and i am not even sure that FB MADE any promises to the users

you may not like it, but that is the law....there MUST be consideration on both sides.

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

....Nowhere in law does it say that you can't have a contract without money changing hands. It's simply an agreement between parties - nothing more.

i did not say it has to be money...could be anything of value...even your own promise to do something or to refrain from doing something...but their there MUST be quid pro quo. if there is no consideration, there is no contract.

you're entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts. ask a lawyer what the legal requirements are to have a contract, in relation to this discussion, and then get back to me.



ps-edit- I could be wrong about the FACTS in this case...show me where there is anything of value given by the users of facebook. do they pay money...no. do they promise to do something...no. do they promise to refrain from doing something...no. i don't see where the users have provided ANY consideration at all. if i am wrong about this, please point it out to me...but what i see is just people using a free service FOR FREE...while providing nothing to FB that could be construed as legal consideration to bring a contract into existence.

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

no, i'm sorry...i am a lawyer and i am giving you the legal requirements to have a contract.

there must be consideration on both sides...ask your own lawyer if you don't believe me...what you are talking about is a promise that is not backed up by consideration. and i am not even sure that FB MADE any promises to the users

you may not like it, but that is the law....there MUST be consideration on both sides.



i did not say it has to be money...could be anything of value...even your own promise to do something or to refrain from doing something...but their there MUST be quid pro quo. if there is no consideration, there is no contract.

you're entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts. ask a lawyer what the legal requirements are to have a contract, in relation to this discussion, and then get back to me.



ps-edit- I could be wrong about the FACTS in this case...show me where there is anything of value given by the users of facebook. do they pay money...no. do they promise to do something...no. do they promise to refrain from doing something...no. i don't see where the users have provided ANY consideration at all. if i am wrong about this, please point it out to me...but what i see is just people using a free service FOR FREE...while providing nothing to FB that could be construed as legal consideration to bring a contract into existence.

Originally Posted by Facebook's ToS

Protecting Other People's Rights

1. We respect other people's rights, and expect you to do the same.
2. You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law.
3. We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement or our policies.
4. We provide you with tools to help you protect your intellectual property rights. To learn more, visit our How to Report Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement page.
5. If we remove your content for infringing someone else's copyright, and you believe we removed it by mistake, we will provide you with an opportunity to appeal.
6. If you repeatedly infringe other people's intellectual property rights, we will disable your account when appropriate.
7. You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission.
8. If you collect information from users, you will: obtain their consent, make it clear you (and not Facebook) are the one collecting their information, and post a privacy policy explaining what information you collect and how you will use it.
9. You will not post anyone's identification documents or sensitive financial information on Facebook.
10. You will not tag users or send email invitations to non-users without their consent. Facebook offers social reporting tools to enable users to provide feedback about tagging.

https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

You agree to all sorts of actions and non-actions by having a Facebook account.

[MarkMgibson]

i did not say it has to be money...could be anything of value...even your own promise to do something or to refrain from doing something...but their there MUST be quid pro quo. if there is no consideration, there is no contract.

Isn't that was I just said? I did ask a lawyer, a barrister in fact (my mother). A contract is just a mutual agreement between parties - no money has to change hands, nor any other "consideration". You may be a lawyer, but I'm afraid you are wrong (unless you've somehow changed the meaning of the word "contract" in the States). "Terms Of Service" is an agreement based on contract.

[Lonesomedave]

the way i see it is this...

you do not have a contract with FB, you have a LICENSE

it is much the same as if your neighbor came to you asked "can i park in your yard" and you say yes.

you do not have a contract with your neighbor, you have given him a license. you can later say to him, if you want." ok, you can park your VW in my yard, but you can't park your Cadillac there"

there is nothing to prevent you from doing that.

Now, if, instead, your neighbor said "i'll give you 100.00 to park in your yard for a year" and you took it, THEN you would have a contract, and would not be legally able to put restrictions, terms and conditions on it.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

Isn't that was I just said? I did ask a lawyer, a barrister in fact (my mother). A contract is just a mutual agreement between parties - no money has to change hands, nor any other "consideration". You may be a lawyer, but I'm afraid you are wrong (unless you've somehow changed the meaning of the word "contract" in the States).

well, i guess that your mother may have grown up in a different legal system. mutual promises ARE consideration. an agreement, to be enforceable, in the states MUST have some consideration between the parties...could be mutual promises. but an "agreement"? well, it depends on what you are mutually agreeing to.

ask your mother about the example I just gave regarding parking in my yard.

do we have a contract where i just say "yes" and you don't pay me for it? could i revoke it at any time? or put restrictions on my permission?

just asking

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

well, i guess that your mother may have grown up in a different legal system. mutual promises ARE consideration. an agreement, to be enforceable, in the states MUST have some consideration between the parties...could be mutual promises. but an "agreement"? well, it depends on what you are mutually agreeing to.

ask your mother about the example I just gave regarding parking in my yard.

do we have a contract where i just say "yes" and you don't pay me for it? could i revoke it at any time? or put restrictions on my permission?

just asking

Did you read through the Terms I posted?

[Pacman]

Some people just can't avoid politics or disrespecting each other.


Seriously, guys. Knock this crap off.