Reading the Fine Print

The Vessel at Hudson Yards New York (media photo provided by Hudson Yards)

The new Hudson Yards development in New York City is making headlines this week and not because it just opened. The real estate development came under fire after Gothamist reported that the Vessel, that massive honey-combed shape art installation of staircases to nowhere has the rights to any photos anyone shares of the structure. This little known use of copyright was posted on Hudson Yards’ website, but at Gothamist noted, it wasn’t posted anywhere at the Vessel. It basically says that simply by visiting the Vessel and taking and posting a photo you agree to give Vessel the rights to all of that content. Curbed New York reported that the terms and conditions are not meant for everyone, but must be agreed to by anyone who purchases a ticket to climb the structure. Either way they created a lot of backlash.

A spokesperson said the goal wasn’t to steal people’s content, but to be able to share their posts, as is common practice these days. (Though it’s worth noting I’ve seen many companies comment on posts they want to share to ask for permission before just sharing them.) Hudson Yard has since updated the language to note that the person who took the photo still retains the ownership of it, however Vessel has the right to repost, share, publish and distribute the image.

Following last week’s readings on Trust Manipulation, Social Breaching and the Dark Side of Technology and Identity, several people questioned whether groups that intentionally mislead others or knowingly post false information could or should be censored. This got me thinking about the terms of service that we all agree to when we join a social network. I think most of us just click “agree” without reading the fine print because we know we want to use the service, so we know we have to agree to the terms, whatever they might be.

As social networks and other online services have drawn negative publicity for different user requirements I’ve found myself looking at the fine print more closely. But as a social media manager as work, there isn’t much I can do about it, since I need to belong to the networks. If more people read the fine print and raised concerns, perhaps we’d see a shift like the people angered by the Vessel’s policy saw. But I also think that we need to realize that just because Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other platforms don’t charge us any fees, none of these services are free. The cost is agreeing to the terms, which often include the right to access information about us or use our content.

So I thought I would look at these terms of service and highlight a few things people may not be aware of. Facebook doesn’t just have a terms of service document, it also has a number of supporting policies, including a data policy and community standards, so to know what you’re agreeing to you need to look at several documents. For example, Facebook’s data policy explains what data it collects about your Facebook use and how the company uses. Facebook actually collects information about what devices you use to access the application, including your mobile carrier, what operating system you’re using and Bluetooth signals and information about nearby Wi-Fi hot spots and cell phone towers. The company says this information is used to improve its products and for “research and innovate for social good” but it’s also used to target advertisements.

Facebook’s community standards policy explains that it removes content that is viewed as dangerous to individuals and organizations. This includes terrorist activity, organized hate, mass or serial murder, human trafficking and organized violence or crime. The policy also has a section on “objectionable content,” which explains that Facebook does not allow hate speech and certain other content, including sexual solicitation or content that is cruel or insensitive.

There is also a section on “integrity and authenticity,” which includes policies on false news and misrepresentation. Facebook does not remove false news, something I didn’t realize. It explains that due to the fine line between false news and satire it doesn’t remove it, however it reduces the distribution by showing it lower in news feeds. The misrepresentation section doesn’t have to do with content, instead it has to do with who is posting the content. This is the clause that requires people to use their real identities when creating an account.

Both Facebook and its sister site Instagram require users to grant them royalty-free permission to use, distribute, modify and display your content. As I noted before, you also grant them the ability to share information about you with advertisers and content sponsors. In other words, the users retain the rights to their content, but they have to grant access.

Instagram does not require people to disclose their identities the way Facebook does, however its terms prohibit impersonation of others. The platform also has community guidelines, which explain that users should only post content they own the rights to. These guidelines also say users must follow the law, respect other members of Instagram and share content that is appropriate for a diverse audience.

Twitter’s terms of use also include a royalty-free license to use your content. In addition to the terms of service is The Twitter Rules document. The rules specifically prohibit the creation of fake accounts and the posting of hateful content. However, it does not seem to address fake or intentionally misleading content.

It seems that a lot of these companies are trying to walk a fine line between free speech and creating an environment that doesn’t foster hate or violence. After reading these agreements I was struck more by what they didn’t include than what they did (though I was surprised by something the things Facebook is tracking, like the Bluetooth data, for example). I also find many of these requirements to be subjective and I wonder who decides when content crosses the line to become something that violates these policies.

In the end, I think most people will continue to click agree just so they have access to the services. The Guardian has a great article worth reading about an experiment involving college students. The students were asked to agree to terms before being allowed to join a new social network. Only a quarter of the 543 participants read the fine print, which include agreeing to give the network their future first-born child. The researchers from the University of Toronto and University of Connecticut had confirmed what most people already know— no one is reading these agreements.

This blog post is an assignment for an Identity, Technology & Communication course at NJIT.