{"id":53481,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/the-failure-of-facebooks-voter-experiment-what-it-may-mean.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"the-failure-of-facebooks-voter-experiment-what-it-may-mean","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/the-failure-of-facebooks-voter-experiment-what-it-may-mean.html","title":{"rendered":"The Failure of Facebook’s Voter Experiment: What It May Mean"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n
\"Anita<\/a><\/td>\n\n

The Failure of Facebook’s Voter Experiment: What It May Mean<\/h1><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n\n

By ANITA RAMASASTRY <\/h2>
<\/a><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

Thursday, May 7, 2009<\/td>\n\n <\/tr>\n <\/table>\n\n

In February 2009, Facebook found itself mired in controversy after it changed its Terms of Service (ToS) in such as way as to claim some ownership of user content, even after members had deleted their profile pages. Users complained, in particular, that Facebook had changed its ToS unilaterally and had merely posted a notice on one of its company blogs \u2013 without notifying users individually.<\/p>\n

In the wake of the outcry, Facebook reverted to its original ToS and then drafted new guiding principles and a statement of rights and responsibilities \u2013 revised Terms of Service that were meant to be more protective of member privacy. Once Facebook had posted its draft documents, it promised to hold a vote among its active users \u2013 to determine if the new ToS would be adopted. (I covered the Facebook controversy and Facebook’s proposed solution in greater detail in an earlier column<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n

\n