<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On Friday 01 June 2012 02:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACpVkK26sDoLzxu=yKi72VF6zep-EUmFN6mzU4AM3O8+gBqZHw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Why am I in
FB and "agreed" with this terms of use? Very prosaic
explanation. Unfortunately, this is the dominant platform
for online communication in my country. My family and friends,
who live in far
away cities, post their lives in FB. Not being in FB is missing
a big part of
their lives; is losing the chance of following their day-to-day.
It means loss
of emotional ties to me. And, since FB is becoming a platform
for general
communication, political protests, and so on, it would mean a
handicap in my
ability to socially engage and make my views heard. So, do I
have an option?
Sure, but the cost of this option is becoming higher everyday.
Too high for me
to call this a real �option�. The suggestion to create a
parallel FB if people
are not happy with the current one seems so out of the reality
of an average user that I will not
make comments about it.</span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Matthias
has put this argument better than I could ever do it, so I
quote:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(26,26,26)" lang="EN-US">as
soon as social network providers are
so successful that their networks are a "quasi-public sphere"
they
lose, it can be argued, the right to use terms of service to
limit
international standards of freedom of expression. The more
successful and
public a service is, the fewer restrictions may be allowed.</span><span
style="" lang="EN-US"></span></p>
</blockquote>
"when a network becomes a 'quasi-public sphere', the providers TOS
needs to be treated much more carefully than any typical contract
between a producer and a consumer". I would like to rephrase
Matthias here.<br>
<br>
It is not 'fewer restrictions' on limiting 'freedom of expression'
alone .... there are several rights that need to be considered -
communication, association, privacy, development etc... and though
rights need to be seen as a whole without division or hierarchies,
there are obvious conflicts / contestations in the actual
implementation of rights for different groups... <br>
<br>
Hence the solution is not just 'fewer restrictions' which limit
foe... but rather global regulation which can manage this complex
interplay of rights in these virtual public spaces... and TOS of
business entities cannot play this role.<br>
national regulation is inadequate as we see - Brazil's own laws
could not protect rights of her citizens against FB's suo moto
actions... <br>
de-facto regulation by US based corporates (or USG / EU) is also
undemocratic.....<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
Guru<br>
btw we had a similar case in India in the 'pink chaddi' campaign by
feminist groups, which FB blocked -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Chaddi_Campaign">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Chaddi_Campaign</a> "Shortly after
the campaign took off, the campaign's Facebook group began to be
attacked by trolls and was eventually broken into. Attackers renamed
the group and included racist slurs and death threats in its
description. The attacks continued despite appeals to Facebook's
support department for help, and eventually Facebook disabled the
account of the group's administrator and access to the group. The
group has decided to avoid Facebook in future"<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>