<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_31_1430256</id>
	<title>Facebook Kills Dataset of Crawled Public Profiles</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1270048740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>holy\_calamity writes <i>"Internet entrepreneur <a href="http://petewarden.typepad.com/">Pete Warden</a> wrote a crawler that collated the public profiles of 210 million Facebook profiles and was set to release an anonymised version to researchers. The pages crawled can be read by any web user, and the robots.txt did not forbid crawling. However, Facebook claimed he had violated its terms of  service and threatened legal action. <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18721-data-sifted-from-facebook-wiped-after-legal-threats.html">Fearing costs, Warden has now destroyed his dataset</a>. For a snapshot of the insights that data could have allowed, see Warden's post on how the friend networks of the 120 million US users in his data <a href="http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/02/how-to-split-up-the-us.html">segregated into seven clusters</a>."</i>  Of course, if he had it, this means anyone who wants it made their own version of this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>holy \ _calamity writes " Internet entrepreneur Pete Warden wrote a crawler that collated the public profiles of 210 million Facebook profiles and was set to release an anonymised version to researchers .
The pages crawled can be read by any web user , and the robots.txt did not forbid crawling .
However , Facebook claimed he had violated its terms of service and threatened legal action .
Fearing costs , Warden has now destroyed his dataset .
For a snapshot of the insights that data could have allowed , see Warden 's post on how the friend networks of the 120 million US users in his data segregated into seven clusters .
" Of course , if he had it , this means anyone who wants it made their own version of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>holy\_calamity writes "Internet entrepreneur Pete Warden wrote a crawler that collated the public profiles of 210 million Facebook profiles and was set to release an anonymised version to researchers.
The pages crawled can be read by any web user, and the robots.txt did not forbid crawling.
However, Facebook claimed he had violated its terms of  service and threatened legal action.
Fearing costs, Warden has now destroyed his dataset.
For a snapshot of the insights that data could have allowed, see Warden's post on how the friend networks of the 120 million US users in his data segregated into seven clusters.
"  Of course, if he had it, this means anyone who wants it made their own version of this.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689680</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook does stuff like this a lot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270058520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I left. No sweat off my back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I left .
No sweat off my back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I left.
No sweat off my back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31693690</id>
	<title>Re:If Facebook had done this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270031280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a little confused because I have definitely seen the facebook data used in research presented at conferences in the last few years, and had just presumed that it was an official version (granted it was on the level of connections rather than much info, but still).  Real world data is very useful in analyzing mathematical models of how that data should behave.  I must admit to getting a kick out of Hitler being the most frequent joint appearance in film - so many movies use clips of his speeches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a little confused because I have definitely seen the facebook data used in research presented at conferences in the last few years , and had just presumed that it was an official version ( granted it was on the level of connections rather than much info , but still ) .
Real world data is very useful in analyzing mathematical models of how that data should behave .
I must admit to getting a kick out of Hitler being the most frequent joint appearance in film - so many movies use clips of his speeches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a little confused because I have definitely seen the facebook data used in research presented at conferences in the last few years, and had just presumed that it was an official version (granted it was on the level of connections rather than much info, but still).
Real world data is very useful in analyzing mathematical models of how that data should behave.
I must admit to getting a kick out of Hitler being the most frequent joint appearance in film - so many movies use clips of his speeches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31702952</id>
	<title>It is publicly available</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1270116240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fail to see how he did anything wrong. If FB doesn't like it then they can change how their site works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how he did anything wrong .
If FB does n't like it then they can change how their site works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how he did anything wrong.
If FB doesn't like it then they can change how their site works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689194</id>
	<title>Re:If Facebook had done this...</title>
	<author>anglico</author>
	<datestamp>1270056480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>exactly! I wish I had mod points, oh wait you're already at 5!
 I was expecting to read a whole list of complaints against this practice when I started reading the comments, and was surprised to say the least.</htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly !
I wish I had mod points , oh wait you 're already at 5 !
I was expecting to read a whole list of complaints against this practice when I started reading the comments , and was surprised to say the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly!
I wish I had mod points, oh wait you're already at 5!
I was expecting to read a whole list of complaints against this practice when I started reading the comments, and was surprised to say the least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689106</id>
	<title>Clue to Pete Warden.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270056120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Twilight was written by a Morman Author. That's why it shows up in your morman section. Apparently writing a script to scrape facebook profiles is easy research, but not looking up an entry in wikipedia.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephenie\_Meyer" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephenie\_Meyer</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twilight was written by a Morman Author .
That 's why it shows up in your morman section .
Apparently writing a script to scrape facebook profiles is easy research , but not looking up an entry in wikipedia.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephenie \ _Meyer [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twilight was written by a Morman Author.
That's why it shows up in your morman section.
Apparently writing a script to scrape facebook profiles is easy research, but not looking up an entry in wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephenie\_Meyer [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690752</id>
	<title>This is data, not protected by copyright</title>
	<author>digitalgimpus</author>
	<datestamp>1270063020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure copyright law even applies here.  No more than it applies to say Google or Yahoo.  He scraped DATA from a publicly accessible website as permitted by the robots.txt file.

How is this really any different than what Google or Yahoo does?  Perhaps the distribution?  Though that's hardly significant in this case as the data is already out there.  He just organized the presentation.

Sounds to me like Facebook just pushing buttons to try and avoid another privacy controversy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/IANAL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//Don't use facebook, I'm aware what companies are scraping and misusing what they sniff all too well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure copyright law even applies here .
No more than it applies to say Google or Yahoo .
He scraped DATA from a publicly accessible website as permitted by the robots.txt file .
How is this really any different than what Google or Yahoo does ?
Perhaps the distribution ?
Though that 's hardly significant in this case as the data is already out there .
He just organized the presentation .
Sounds to me like Facebook just pushing buttons to try and avoid another privacy controversy .
/IANAL //Do n't use facebook , I 'm aware what companies are scraping and misusing what they sniff all too well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure copyright law even applies here.
No more than it applies to say Google or Yahoo.
He scraped DATA from a publicly accessible website as permitted by the robots.txt file.
How is this really any different than what Google or Yahoo does?
Perhaps the distribution?
Though that's hardly significant in this case as the data is already out there.
He just organized the presentation.
Sounds to me like Facebook just pushing buttons to try and avoid another privacy controversy.
/IANAL //Don't use facebook, I'm aware what companies are scraping and misusing what they sniff all too well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31758988</id>
	<title>Re:Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, sec.</title>
	<author>xenobyte</author>
	<datestamp>1270635900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An empty robots.txt is not blank-check permission to crawl and use the data for whatever you want.</p></div><p>No, but it's not a ban either.</p><p>Common sense dictates that if data is publicly accessible and not accompanied by a specific usage limitation, you can mine the data and use it for scientific purposes as fair use. This guy did not charge for his results, nor for the compiled data, so it was textbook fair use.</p><p>Remember, he did not use the collected data directly but only the relationships it inferred. That information is the product of the crawlers compilation, not the data itself, and only the data itself can be copyrighted. It's just like the fact that you cannot copyright the mood a certain piece of music or movie puts you in, only the music or movie itself. The mood is the product of an interpretation of the music or movie, and while it may be an intended result, it is still not a part of the music or movie itself.</p><p>If only... I could copyright sappy lovesongs... Profit!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An empty robots.txt is not blank-check permission to crawl and use the data for whatever you want.No , but it 's not a ban either.Common sense dictates that if data is publicly accessible and not accompanied by a specific usage limitation , you can mine the data and use it for scientific purposes as fair use .
This guy did not charge for his results , nor for the compiled data , so it was textbook fair use.Remember , he did not use the collected data directly but only the relationships it inferred .
That information is the product of the crawlers compilation , not the data itself , and only the data itself can be copyrighted .
It 's just like the fact that you can not copyright the mood a certain piece of music or movie puts you in , only the music or movie itself .
The mood is the product of an interpretation of the music or movie , and while it may be an intended result , it is still not a part of the music or movie itself.If only... I could copyright sappy lovesongs.. .
Profit ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An empty robots.txt is not blank-check permission to crawl and use the data for whatever you want.No, but it's not a ban either.Common sense dictates that if data is publicly accessible and not accompanied by a specific usage limitation, you can mine the data and use it for scientific purposes as fair use.
This guy did not charge for his results, nor for the compiled data, so it was textbook fair use.Remember, he did not use the collected data directly but only the relationships it inferred.
That information is the product of the crawlers compilation, not the data itself, and only the data itself can be copyrighted.
It's just like the fact that you cannot copyright the mood a certain piece of music or movie puts you in, only the music or movie itself.
The mood is the product of an interpretation of the music or movie, and while it may be an intended result, it is still not a part of the music or movie itself.If only... I could copyright sappy lovesongs...
Profit!!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688724</id>
	<title>You see, Facebook doesn't only control your...</title>
	<author>Jalfro</author>
	<datestamp>1270054380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>personal information - they own it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>personal information - they own it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>personal information - they own it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31692216</id>
	<title>Re:Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, sec.</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1270068660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>You will not collect users&rsquo; content or information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission.</p></div></blockquote><p>An empty robots.txt is not blank-check permission to crawl and use the data for whatever you want.</p></div><p>But has the guy even signed up?  We're not talking the Geneva Convention, here.  Could facebook really impose its facebook Constitution on a non member?  Sure I understand they'd <em>want</em> to.  But wanting and having are two different things, he said, noting the absence of his army of Natalie Portman fembots.</p><p>Do you suggest that this work falls in the realm of unauthorized access?  Do you think facebook has specifically authorized Google?  There are facebook pages in Google's cache. So does Yahoo!  And bing, dogpile, redz . . . Have they really authorized all of these?  These sites are certainly not providing their services without an eye to making money off of them.</p><p>But I could be wrong.  Every search engine provider could have a deal with every web page that its system crawls . . . </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You will not collect users    content or information , or otherwise access Facebook , using automated means ( such as harvesting bots , robots , spiders , or scrapers ) without our permission.An empty robots.txt is not blank-check permission to crawl and use the data for whatever you want.But has the guy even signed up ?
We 're not talking the Geneva Convention , here .
Could facebook really impose its facebook Constitution on a non member ?
Sure I understand they 'd want to .
But wanting and having are two different things , he said , noting the absence of his army of Natalie Portman fembots.Do you suggest that this work falls in the realm of unauthorized access ?
Do you think facebook has specifically authorized Google ?
There are facebook pages in Google 's cache .
So does Yahoo !
And bing , dogpile , redz .
. .
Have they really authorized all of these ?
These sites are certainly not providing their services without an eye to making money off of them.But I could be wrong .
Every search engine provider could have a deal with every web page that its system crawls .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will not collect users’ content or information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission.An empty robots.txt is not blank-check permission to crawl and use the data for whatever you want.But has the guy even signed up?
We're not talking the Geneva Convention, here.
Could facebook really impose its facebook Constitution on a non member?
Sure I understand they'd want to.
But wanting and having are two different things, he said, noting the absence of his army of Natalie Portman fembots.Do you suggest that this work falls in the realm of unauthorized access?
Do you think facebook has specifically authorized Google?
There are facebook pages in Google's cache.
So does Yahoo!
And bing, dogpile, redz .
. .
Have they really authorized all of these?
These sites are certainly not providing their services without an eye to making money off of them.But I could be wrong.
Every search engine provider could have a deal with every web page that its system crawls .
. . 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691666</id>
	<title>Amusing in light of this story</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1270066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone else noticed this new banner at the top of Slashdot?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook</p></div><p>It's funny that as much railing on Facebook that is done on Slashdot that Slashdot is advertising for people to become fans of them on Facebook.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone else noticed this new banner at the top of Slashdot ? Become a fan of Slashdot on FacebookIt 's funny that as much railing on Facebook that is done on Slashdot that Slashdot is advertising for people to become fans of them on Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone else noticed this new banner at the top of Slashdot?Become a fan of Slashdot on FacebookIt's funny that as much railing on Facebook that is done on Slashdot that Slashdot is advertising for people to become fans of them on Facebook.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688404</id>
	<title>Re:If Facebook had done this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270053000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Facebook had released this information we would be flaming?</p><p>They did and we still are.</p><p>(yes)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Facebook had released this information we would be flaming ? They did and we still are .
( yes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Facebook had released this information we would be flaming?They did and we still are.
(yes)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689956</id>
	<title>Re:Publicly available</title>
	<author>prostoalex</author>
	<datestamp>1270059900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I work for the company mentioned in the article, not in legal role though.</p><p>Privacy is dynamic and "publicly available information" is not set in stone - user could've chosen to hide specific bits of that information a few minutes later, and there doesn't seem to be any update protocol to remove those bits from the scraped DB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I work for the company mentioned in the article , not in legal role though.Privacy is dynamic and " publicly available information " is not set in stone - user could 've chosen to hide specific bits of that information a few minutes later , and there does n't seem to be any update protocol to remove those bits from the scraped DB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I work for the company mentioned in the article, not in legal role though.Privacy is dynamic and "publicly available information" is not set in stone - user could've chosen to hide specific bits of that information a few minutes later, and there doesn't seem to be any update protocol to remove those bits from the scraped DB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689744</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>Chees0rz</author>
	<datestamp>1270058880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one case I am glad I RTFA.  The dataset is destroyed, but there is still a neeto little web application to play with.  It's fun to poke around with... I find myself wanting more.

<br> <br>
And of course facebook wanted to shut him down... this is probably data they are collecting themselves and are selling / want to sell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one case I am glad I RTFA .
The dataset is destroyed , but there is still a neeto little web application to play with .
It 's fun to poke around with... I find myself wanting more .
And of course facebook wanted to shut him down... this is probably data they are collecting themselves and are selling / want to sell : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one case I am glad I RTFA.
The dataset is destroyed, but there is still a neeto little web application to play with.
It's fun to poke around with... I find myself wanting more.
And of course facebook wanted to shut him down... this is probably data they are collecting themselves and are selling / want to sell :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688464</id>
	<title>chilling effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270053180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't see Facebook going after Google, even though the data that they posses is ostensibly the same as Warden's. The primary diff that i see is that warden was offering analysis and results for free- not trying to monetize it. Maybe that's what made them mad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't see Facebook going after Google , even though the data that they posses is ostensibly the same as Warden 's .
The primary diff that i see is that warden was offering analysis and results for free- not trying to monetize it .
Maybe that 's what made them mad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't see Facebook going after Google, even though the data that they posses is ostensibly the same as Warden's.
The primary diff that i see is that warden was offering analysis and results for free- not trying to monetize it.
Maybe that's what made them mad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690352</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook does stuff like this a lot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270061460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better... not only do people not leave Facebook, they protest the change in policies by making Facebook groups about how they hate Facebook.  (And I think it's safe to say that Facebook doesn't care if those groups exist as long as the users stick around.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better... not only do people not leave Facebook , they protest the change in policies by making Facebook groups about how they hate Facebook .
( And I think it 's safe to say that Facebook does n't care if those groups exist as long as the users stick around .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better... not only do people not leave Facebook, they protest the change in policies by making Facebook groups about how they hate Facebook.
(And I think it's safe to say that Facebook doesn't care if those groups exist as long as the users stick around.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688234</id>
	<title>For an Interesting Exercise in Head Asplosion</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1270052340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fearing costs, Warden has now destroyed his dataset.</p></div><p>Couldn't Warden have sent requests to the EFF to provide lawyers so he could fight an evil corporation to use freely publicly available information?   <br> <br>Then Facebook could ask the EFF to protect their user's privacy and information being sold to marketers and corporations (sorry, when you're introduced as "Internet <b>entrepreneur</b>" that means there's profit to be had).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fearing costs , Warden has now destroyed his dataset.Could n't Warden have sent requests to the EFF to provide lawyers so he could fight an evil corporation to use freely publicly available information ?
Then Facebook could ask the EFF to protect their user 's privacy and information being sold to marketers and corporations ( sorry , when you 're introduced as " Internet entrepreneur " that means there 's profit to be had ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fearing costs, Warden has now destroyed his dataset.Couldn't Warden have sent requests to the EFF to provide lawyers so he could fight an evil corporation to use freely publicly available information?
Then Facebook could ask the EFF to protect their user's privacy and information being sold to marketers and corporations (sorry, when you're introduced as "Internet entrepreneur" that means there's profit to be had).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31692546</id>
	<title>Re:Very interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270026660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people don't understand the issues with public profiles, or understand the privacy issues with the internet in general.</p><p>They think of these sites as something akin to their own backyards. Sometimes they invite some folks over for a bbq, other times they sunbath nude.</p><p>And they assume their neighbors won't be peeping on them and selling the pictures.</p><p>On the internet, it's big giant corporations like Google who are doing the peeping and selling the pictures to the highest bidder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people do n't understand the issues with public profiles , or understand the privacy issues with the internet in general.They think of these sites as something akin to their own backyards .
Sometimes they invite some folks over for a bbq , other times they sunbath nude.And they assume their neighbors wo n't be peeping on them and selling the pictures.On the internet , it 's big giant corporations like Google who are doing the peeping and selling the pictures to the highest bidder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people don't understand the issues with public profiles, or understand the privacy issues with the internet in general.They think of these sites as something akin to their own backyards.
Sometimes they invite some folks over for a bbq, other times they sunbath nude.And they assume their neighbors won't be peeping on them and selling the pictures.On the internet, it's big giant corporations like Google who are doing the peeping and selling the pictures to the highest bidder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689052</id>
	<title>WHAT TOS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270055880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Quote: Facebook claimed he had violated its terms of service</p><p>As I understand it the information was openly available and therefore does not require you to use Facebook friend requests to get it. I fail to see how Facebook can impose a TOS on someone who accesses the site but does not use the service.</p><p>Is it assumed I agree to the TOS of Yahoo.com by visiting the frontpage? Is it assumed I agree to the TOS of any website by just visiting, even though they may not have explicitly stated I have agreed to it? If I can make people agree to a TOS without their knowledge than I am going to file a lawsuit against Facebook claiming they owe me $1,000,000 because it is in the TOS right here on my desk about them using my data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote : Facebook claimed he had violated its terms of serviceAs I understand it the information was openly available and therefore does not require you to use Facebook friend requests to get it .
I fail to see how Facebook can impose a TOS on someone who accesses the site but does not use the service.Is it assumed I agree to the TOS of Yahoo.com by visiting the frontpage ?
Is it assumed I agree to the TOS of any website by just visiting , even though they may not have explicitly stated I have agreed to it ?
If I can make people agree to a TOS without their knowledge than I am going to file a lawsuit against Facebook claiming they owe me $ 1,000,000 because it is in the TOS right here on my desk about them using my data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Quote: Facebook claimed he had violated its terms of serviceAs I understand it the information was openly available and therefore does not require you to use Facebook friend requests to get it.
I fail to see how Facebook can impose a TOS on someone who accesses the site but does not use the service.Is it assumed I agree to the TOS of Yahoo.com by visiting the frontpage?
Is it assumed I agree to the TOS of any website by just visiting, even though they may not have explicitly stated I have agreed to it?
If I can make people agree to a TOS without their knowledge than I am going to file a lawsuit against Facebook claiming they owe me $1,000,000 because it is in the TOS right here on my desk about them using my data.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689336</id>
	<title>Re:For an Interesting Exercise in Head Asplosion</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1270057080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Practical answer: Next time, do your research overseas.</p><p>Commentary: It's sad when you have to do legal forum shopping before starting your research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Practical answer : Next time , do your research overseas.Commentary : It 's sad when you have to do legal forum shopping before starting your research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Practical answer: Next time, do your research overseas.Commentary: It's sad when you have to do legal forum shopping before starting your research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688486</id>
	<title>Re:If Facebook had done this...</title>
	<author>Altus</author>
	<datestamp>1270053300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why do you think they threatened him?  they want to sell this data themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why do you think they threatened him ?
they want to sell this data themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why do you think they threatened him?
they want to sell this data themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31692250</id>
	<title>Re:Clue to Pete Warden.</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1270068780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Twilight was written by a Morman Author.</p></div><p>Do you mean The Charch of Jesas Chrast of Lattar Day Saants?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Twilight was written by a Morman Author.Do you mean The Charch of Jesas Chrast of Lattar Day Saants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twilight was written by a Morman Author.Do you mean The Charch of Jesas Chrast of Lattar Day Saants?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688876</id>
	<title>Don't worry...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270055160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody else will do it again, this time anonymously and with an evil robot that hides its tracks.  It only takes perl, LWP, MySQL, tor and a little time and imagination to do so.</p><p>Fuck you, Zuckerberg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody else will do it again , this time anonymously and with an evil robot that hides its tracks .
It only takes perl , LWP , MySQL , tor and a little time and imagination to do so.Fuck you , Zuckerberg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody else will do it again, this time anonymously and with an evil robot that hides its tracks.
It only takes perl, LWP, MySQL, tor and a little time and imagination to do so.Fuck you, Zuckerberg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690374</id>
	<title>Re:For an Interesting Exercise in Head Asplosion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270061640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>He could have done that, yes.  But there's no guarantee that they would be able to help and even if they could it would be an amazingly huge pain in the ass from any point of view.<br><br>Once again our bullshit legal system allows companies to bully innocent citizens into submission.  The solution: Bomb facebook headquarters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He could have done that , yes .
But there 's no guarantee that they would be able to help and even if they could it would be an amazingly huge pain in the ass from any point of view.Once again our bullshit legal system allows companies to bully innocent citizens into submission .
The solution : Bomb facebook headquarters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He could have done that, yes.
But there's no guarantee that they would be able to help and even if they could it would be an amazingly huge pain in the ass from any point of view.Once again our bullshit legal system allows companies to bully innocent citizens into submission.
The solution: Bomb facebook headquarters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688452</id>
	<title>Publicly available</title>
	<author>mdsharpe</author>
	<datestamp>1270053120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since this is publicly available information, and all he did was send a program to go grab it (much akin to asking your web browser to download it), does this mean Facebook has essentially threatened him for no more than reading too much of Facebook too quickly? Sounds absurd to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this is publicly available information , and all he did was send a program to go grab it ( much akin to asking your web browser to download it ) , does this mean Facebook has essentially threatened him for no more than reading too much of Facebook too quickly ?
Sounds absurd to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this is publicly available information, and all he did was send a program to go grab it (much akin to asking your web browser to download it), does this mean Facebook has essentially threatened him for no more than reading too much of Facebook too quickly?
Sounds absurd to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688564</id>
	<title>Facebook does stuff like this a lot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270053660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did something similar to <a href="http://www.fbpurity.com/" title="fbpurity.com">FB Purity</a> [fbpurity.com], a Greasemonkey script that allows users to filter out apps and other stuff they don't want to see in their feed.  Facebook argued that they were misusing their "FB" trademark... eventually they let them continue under the name "fluff busting purity", probably due to the PR backlash that shutting them down would bring.</p><p>They've also shut down the Facebook portion of the <a href="http://suicidemachine.org/" title="suicidemachine.org">Web 2.0 Suicide Machine</a> [suicidemachine.org], which runs scripts that allow a user to delete their social profiles as thoroughly as sites will allow.  In that case, they argued that the Suicide Machine was violating their "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities"... which isn't even a law!  Nonetheless, the Suicide Machine didn't have the financial ability to fight even frivolous claims like that, so they folded that section.</p><p>Facebook apparently believes that its users will continue using the site regardless of the ridiculous access policies that their legal department create and defend.  I hope they're wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did something similar to FB Purity [ fbpurity.com ] , a Greasemonkey script that allows users to filter out apps and other stuff they do n't want to see in their feed .
Facebook argued that they were misusing their " FB " trademark... eventually they let them continue under the name " fluff busting purity " , probably due to the PR backlash that shutting them down would bring.They 've also shut down the Facebook portion of the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine [ suicidemachine.org ] , which runs scripts that allow a user to delete their social profiles as thoroughly as sites will allow .
In that case , they argued that the Suicide Machine was violating their " Statement of Rights and Responsibilities " ... which is n't even a law !
Nonetheless , the Suicide Machine did n't have the financial ability to fight even frivolous claims like that , so they folded that section.Facebook apparently believes that its users will continue using the site regardless of the ridiculous access policies that their legal department create and defend .
I hope they 're wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did something similar to FB Purity [fbpurity.com], a Greasemonkey script that allows users to filter out apps and other stuff they don't want to see in their feed.
Facebook argued that they were misusing their "FB" trademark... eventually they let them continue under the name "fluff busting purity", probably due to the PR backlash that shutting them down would bring.They've also shut down the Facebook portion of the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine [suicidemachine.org], which runs scripts that allow a user to delete their social profiles as thoroughly as sites will allow.
In that case, they argued that the Suicide Machine was violating their "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities"... which isn't even a law!
Nonetheless, the Suicide Machine didn't have the financial ability to fight even frivolous claims like that, so they folded that section.Facebook apparently believes that its users will continue using the site regardless of the ridiculous access policies that their legal department create and defend.
I hope they're wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31697490</id>
	<title>Re:If Facebook had done this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270058040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+5 Insightful? More like +5 Idiot.</p><p>I'm going to explain to you a little something you should already know. In fact, I hope for your own sake that you DO know this and are just being disingenuous, otherwise you really are a moron.</p><p>Ready? Here goes:</p><p>Those of us who are critical of Facebook (and other such services) on privacy grounds generally ASSUME that Facebook already collects such data AND HAS BEEN DOING THIS SINCE DAY ZERO. After all, said data is collected by their service on their servers. Do you think they may be, you know, gathering it? This assumption, moreover, IS PRECISELY WHY we claim that the Facebooks of this world raise serious privacy concerns.</p><p>I'll go even further, in fact, and claim that a big part of the reason it is OK for this guy to do this is that FACEBOOK IS ALREADY DOING IT, and the values of transparency and democracy that most of us embrace would be better served by such data being public.</p><p>So you see, your lame attempt to expose our hypocrisy only results in a display of your own idiocy and moral midgetry.</p><p>The scare quotes around "privacy" just act as the cherry on top. To that part I can only comment: "Christ, what an asshole".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 5 Insightful ?
More like + 5 Idiot.I 'm going to explain to you a little something you should already know .
In fact , I hope for your own sake that you DO know this and are just being disingenuous , otherwise you really are a moron.Ready ?
Here goes : Those of us who are critical of Facebook ( and other such services ) on privacy grounds generally ASSUME that Facebook already collects such data AND HAS BEEN DOING THIS SINCE DAY ZERO .
After all , said data is collected by their service on their servers .
Do you think they may be , you know , gathering it ?
This assumption , moreover , IS PRECISELY WHY we claim that the Facebooks of this world raise serious privacy concerns.I 'll go even further , in fact , and claim that a big part of the reason it is OK for this guy to do this is that FACEBOOK IS ALREADY DOING IT , and the values of transparency and democracy that most of us embrace would be better served by such data being public.So you see , your lame attempt to expose our hypocrisy only results in a display of your own idiocy and moral midgetry.The scare quotes around " privacy " just act as the cherry on top .
To that part I can only comment : " Christ , what an asshole " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+5 Insightful?
More like +5 Idiot.I'm going to explain to you a little something you should already know.
In fact, I hope for your own sake that you DO know this and are just being disingenuous, otherwise you really are a moron.Ready?
Here goes:Those of us who are critical of Facebook (and other such services) on privacy grounds generally ASSUME that Facebook already collects such data AND HAS BEEN DOING THIS SINCE DAY ZERO.
After all, said data is collected by their service on their servers.
Do you think they may be, you know, gathering it?
This assumption, moreover, IS PRECISELY WHY we claim that the Facebooks of this world raise serious privacy concerns.I'll go even further, in fact, and claim that a big part of the reason it is OK for this guy to do this is that FACEBOOK IS ALREADY DOING IT, and the values of transparency and democracy that most of us embrace would be better served by such data being public.So you see, your lame attempt to expose our hypocrisy only results in a display of your own idiocy and moral midgetry.The scare quotes around "privacy" just act as the cherry on top.
To that part I can only comment: "Christ, what an asshole".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688870</id>
	<title>Like hell he deleted it though.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270055100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>He'll have a few recordable DVDs lying around somewhere to use when FB eventually dies or he thinks enough time has passed to anonymously float the data out on a torrent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 'll have a few recordable DVDs lying around somewhere to use when FB eventually dies or he thinks enough time has passed to anonymously float the data out on a torrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He'll have a few recordable DVDs lying around somewhere to use when FB eventually dies or he thinks enough time has passed to anonymously float the data out on a torrent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689740</id>
	<title>Interesting data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270058820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignoring the legality of it for a moment. What sort of questions can we ask and answer with the facebook data? Look how he has managed to divide the US into groups based on who is friends with who? That's a very interesting way of dividing up a country!  StayAtHomeIa. Haha.</p><p>I for one, wish the entire facebook profile database was made public (with personal identifiable information removed). The benefit to researchers would be immeasurable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the legality of it for a moment .
What sort of questions can we ask and answer with the facebook data ?
Look how he has managed to divide the US into groups based on who is friends with who ?
That 's a very interesting way of dividing up a country !
StayAtHomeIa. Haha.I for one , wish the entire facebook profile database was made public ( with personal identifiable information removed ) .
The benefit to researchers would be immeasurable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring the legality of it for a moment.
What sort of questions can we ask and answer with the facebook data?
Look how he has managed to divide the US into groups based on who is friends with who?
That's a very interesting way of dividing up a country!
StayAtHomeIa. Haha.I for one, wish the entire facebook profile database was made public (with personal identifiable information removed).
The benefit to researchers would be immeasurable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31695512</id>
	<title>Who's "you"? A Straw Man?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1270040640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly, that's a straw man. Companies use generalised data all the time for marketing purposes. And actually, I'd say you're wrong - typically the response to "privacy" rights over public material is that people have to right to privacy - <i>especially</i> if it's on Facebook!</p><p>Secondly, these aren't mutually exclusive. Perhaps some people might have objected to this guy doing what he's doing, but that doesn't mean that it's right to claim he's bound by some TOS.</p><p>But hey, since arguing against straw men is an easy way to get karma, allow me to say actually, you're wrong, copyright infringement isn't stealing, and Linux is better than Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , that 's a straw man .
Companies use generalised data all the time for marketing purposes .
And actually , I 'd say you 're wrong - typically the response to " privacy " rights over public material is that people have to right to privacy - especially if it 's on Facebook ! Secondly , these are n't mutually exclusive .
Perhaps some people might have objected to this guy doing what he 's doing , but that does n't mean that it 's right to claim he 's bound by some TOS.But hey , since arguing against straw men is an easy way to get karma , allow me to say actually , you 're wrong , copyright infringement is n't stealing , and Linux is better than Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, that's a straw man.
Companies use generalised data all the time for marketing purposes.
And actually, I'd say you're wrong - typically the response to "privacy" rights over public material is that people have to right to privacy - especially if it's on Facebook!Secondly, these aren't mutually exclusive.
Perhaps some people might have objected to this guy doing what he's doing, but that doesn't mean that it's right to claim he's bound by some TOS.But hey, since arguing against straw men is an easy way to get karma, allow me to say actually, you're wrong, copyright infringement isn't stealing, and Linux is better than Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690664</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook does stuff like this a lot</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1270062660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's probably something to do with the fact that: eh, you can:</p><p>1) leave the site and have them keep all the data, while at the same time not be able to view your friends' profiles again<br>2) stay</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably something to do with the fact that : eh , you can : 1 ) leave the site and have them keep all the data , while at the same time not be able to view your friends ' profiles again2 ) stay</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably something to do with the fact that: eh, you can:1) leave the site and have them keep all the data, while at the same time not be able to view your friends' profiles again2) stay</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688552</id>
	<title>Very interesting</title>
	<author>Bearhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1270053600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll let others debate the 'privacy' issues; (personally I think there's nothing wrong with scraping profile information that people have explicitly made 'public')<br>Anyways, just check what he did with it; very interesting: (FTA)<br><a href="http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/02/how-to-split-up-the-us.html" title="typepad.com">http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/02/how-to-split-up-the-us.html</a> [typepad.com]<br>There must be many, many legit uses this data could be put too...shame it's being killed by NIH syndrome</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll let others debate the 'privacy ' issues ; ( personally I think there 's nothing wrong with scraping profile information that people have explicitly made 'public ' ) Anyways , just check what he did with it ; very interesting : ( FTA ) http : //petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/02/how-to-split-up-the-us.html [ typepad.com ] There must be many , many legit uses this data could be put too...shame it 's being killed by NIH syndrome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll let others debate the 'privacy' issues; (personally I think there's nothing wrong with scraping profile information that people have explicitly made 'public')Anyways, just check what he did with it; very interesting: (FTA)http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/02/how-to-split-up-the-us.html [typepad.com]There must be many, many legit uses this data could be put too...shame it's being killed by NIH syndrome</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689342</id>
	<title>Haha!</title>
	<author>comm2k</author>
	<datestamp>1270057140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The most boring of the clusters, the area around Seattle is disappointingly average.</p><p><div class="quote"></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most boring of the clusters , the area around Seattle is disappointingly average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most boring of the clusters, the area around Seattle is disappointingly average.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690368</id>
	<title>Re:For an Interesting Exercise in Head Asplosion</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1270061580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming all those profiles were indeed publicly available without having to log in to facebook, how could he have ever violated terms of service if he never agreed to any terms of service?</p><p>Am I to assume that anybody that has the misfortune to view a facebook profile without being a facebook member is automagically in violation of facebook's terms of service?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming all those profiles were indeed publicly available without having to log in to facebook , how could he have ever violated terms of service if he never agreed to any terms of service ? Am I to assume that anybody that has the misfortune to view a facebook profile without being a facebook member is automagically in violation of facebook 's terms of service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming all those profiles were indeed publicly available without having to log in to facebook, how could he have ever violated terms of service if he never agreed to any terms of service?Am I to assume that anybody that has the misfortune to view a facebook profile without being a facebook member is automagically in violation of facebook's terms of service?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688892</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook does stuff like this a lot</title>
	<author>flabordec</author>
	<datestamp>1270055220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook apparently believes that its users will continue using the site regardless of the ridiculous access policies that their legal department create and defend. I hope they're wrong.</p></div><p>I'm afraid the average Facebook user is a teen who is more worried with getting a higher score in whatever Flash game she is currently playing than in FB's access policies for computers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook apparently believes that its users will continue using the site regardless of the ridiculous access policies that their legal department create and defend .
I hope they 're wrong.I 'm afraid the average Facebook user is a teen who is more worried with getting a higher score in whatever Flash game she is currently playing than in FB 's access policies for computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook apparently believes that its users will continue using the site regardless of the ridiculous access policies that their legal department create and defend.
I hope they're wrong.I'm afraid the average Facebook user is a teen who is more worried with getting a higher score in whatever Flash game she is currently playing than in FB's access policies for computers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689000</id>
	<title>Re:Very interesting</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1270055640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There must be many, many legit uses this data could be put too...shame it's being killed by NIH syndrome</p></div><p>By "NIH syndrome," I assume you're referring to "Not Invented Here." I don't really see what that has to do with this case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There must be many , many legit uses this data could be put too...shame it 's being killed by NIH syndromeBy " NIH syndrome , " I assume you 're referring to " Not Invented Here .
" I do n't really see what that has to do with this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There must be many, many legit uses this data could be put too...shame it's being killed by NIH syndromeBy "NIH syndrome," I assume you're referring to "Not Invented Here.
" I don't really see what that has to do with this case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31699388</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1270128600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Yes it does give you the authority! Do you know nothing about how servers work?If you look at a page on the web, you send a message to the server, asking &ldquo;could you please give me that page there?&rdquo;And the server then can decide under what conditions it honors your request.These rules are decided by the site hoster upon installation.If the server gives you the page freely, and without any conditions (which nearly all web servers do), then you can do with it whatever you want.Or in short: You pass</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it does give you the authority !
Do you know nothing about how servers work ? If you look at a page on the web , you send a message to the server , asking    could you please give me that page there ?    And the server then can decide under what conditions it honors your request.These rules are decided by the site hoster upon installation.If the server gives you the page freely , and without any conditions ( which nearly all web servers do ) , then you can do with it whatever you want.Or in short : You pass</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it does give you the authority!
Do you know nothing about how servers work?If you look at a page on the web, you send a message to the server, asking “could you please give me that page there?”And the server then can decide under what conditions it honors your request.These rules are decided by the site hoster upon installation.If the server gives you the page freely, and without any conditions (which nearly all web servers do), then you can do with it whatever you want.Or in short: You pass</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688496</id>
	<title>Facebook is evil</title>
	<author>trurl7</author>
	<datestamp>1270053360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides the obvious (wasting time, too much info being shared with future employers), their privacy and data policies have gotten worse and worse.  Once you sign up with them, they own everything you do.  Or at least so they believe.  From his writing, this researches was quite open and tried to be as forthcoming as possible.  If they had concerns over anonymity, I suspect he would have been happy to discuss the exact data-scrubbing procedure to make sure it's on the level.  But instead, these turds reach for the lawyers.</p><p>So it's fine for search engines to cache this data.  It's fine for marketing firms to use it to pester even more people.  But the moment the researchers get  in on it - oh noes, gotta stop that shit from happening.</p><p>With any spare time, I'd sit down, recreate the damn dataset and post it to every torrent site in the world.  Let's Streisand these jerks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides the obvious ( wasting time , too much info being shared with future employers ) , their privacy and data policies have gotten worse and worse .
Once you sign up with them , they own everything you do .
Or at least so they believe .
From his writing , this researches was quite open and tried to be as forthcoming as possible .
If they had concerns over anonymity , I suspect he would have been happy to discuss the exact data-scrubbing procedure to make sure it 's on the level .
But instead , these turds reach for the lawyers.So it 's fine for search engines to cache this data .
It 's fine for marketing firms to use it to pester even more people .
But the moment the researchers get in on it - oh noes , got ta stop that shit from happening.With any spare time , I 'd sit down , recreate the damn dataset and post it to every torrent site in the world .
Let 's Streisand these jerks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides the obvious (wasting time, too much info being shared with future employers), their privacy and data policies have gotten worse and worse.
Once you sign up with them, they own everything you do.
Or at least so they believe.
From his writing, this researches was quite open and tried to be as forthcoming as possible.
If they had concerns over anonymity, I suspect he would have been happy to discuss the exact data-scrubbing procedure to make sure it's on the level.
But instead, these turds reach for the lawyers.So it's fine for search engines to cache this data.
It's fine for marketing firms to use it to pester even more people.
But the moment the researchers get  in on it - oh noes, gotta stop that shit from happening.With any spare time, I'd sit down, recreate the damn dataset and post it to every torrent site in the world.
Let's Streisand these jerks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689552</id>
	<title>Re:Publicly available</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1270058040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. It means that Facebook needs to have some data publicly available for users to browse, but that it can't let people take that data out of the Facebook realm. In other words, Facebook knows exactly what it is doing, and is acting in both cases in its best interest.</p><p>Now, does that mean that Facebook's approach makes sense, and would stand up in court? I doubt it, but I don't have the cash to test that theory. Which in turn means that the outcome was just as predictable: Facebook makes up random rules and requests, and they stand because most people don't have the resources to challenge the lawyer army of a successful corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
It means that Facebook needs to have some data publicly available for users to browse , but that it ca n't let people take that data out of the Facebook realm .
In other words , Facebook knows exactly what it is doing , and is acting in both cases in its best interest.Now , does that mean that Facebook 's approach makes sense , and would stand up in court ?
I doubt it , but I do n't have the cash to test that theory .
Which in turn means that the outcome was just as predictable : Facebook makes up random rules and requests , and they stand because most people do n't have the resources to challenge the lawyer army of a successful corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
It means that Facebook needs to have some data publicly available for users to browse, but that it can't let people take that data out of the Facebook realm.
In other words, Facebook knows exactly what it is doing, and is acting in both cases in its best interest.Now, does that mean that Facebook's approach makes sense, and would stand up in court?
I doubt it, but I don't have the cash to test that theory.
Which in turn means that the outcome was just as predictable: Facebook makes up random rules and requests, and they stand because most people don't have the resources to challenge the lawyer army of a successful corporation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688448</id>
	<title>Yes, by all means, let's stamp out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270053120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...all the researchers who do everything in the open and with proper anonymization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...all the researchers who do everything in the open and with proper anonymization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...all the researchers who do everything in the open and with proper anonymization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689656</id>
	<title>Re:If Facebook had done this...</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1270058460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except Pete can't actually sell the data, that would be a derivative work of their copyrighted web-pages.  Sure he has the fair-use ability to publish academic studies, but he'd be limited to using the data internally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Pete ca n't actually sell the data , that would be a derivative work of their copyrighted web-pages .
Sure he has the fair-use ability to publish academic studies , but he 'd be limited to using the data internally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Pete can't actually sell the data, that would be a derivative work of their copyrighted web-pages.
Sure he has the fair-use ability to publish academic studies, but he'd be limited to using the data internally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298</id>
	<title>If Facebook had done this...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1270052640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you'd be flaming them for invading your "privacy".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you 'd be flaming them for invading your " privacy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you'd be flaming them for invading your "privacy".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691478</id>
	<title>Re:For an Interesting Exercise in Head Asplosion</title>
	<author>AtlantaSteve</author>
	<datestamp>1270065840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Couldn't Warden have sent requests to the EFF to provide lawyers so he could fight an evil corporation to use freely publicly available information?</p></div><p>About once a month or so, somebody comments about a landlord doing something abusive to a tenant, or a school district violating its student's rights, or citizens being wronged by the police or Feds.  Somebody else always responds, "Why don't they just get the ACLU to step in?"</p><p>True, the ACLU has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aclu" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">over a half-million members</a> [wikipedia.org].  Between it's political advocacy and charitable foundation arms, it has <a href="http://www.aclu.org/node/20481" title="aclu.org" rel="nofollow">over $120 million per year of revenue</a> [aclu.org].  Yet STILL, it can only be bothered to get involved with a tiny subset of possible cases.  It is ultimately a political and public policy organization, and has to pick and choose the battles that will give it the biggest strategic impact with the smallest possible commitment of resources.</p><p>Meanwhile, the entire EFF staff <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/eff-2008-2009-annual-report.pdf" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">could comfortably hang out at my house and watch a football game</a> [eff.org].  Their annual revenue of <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/eff-2008-2009-annual-report.pdf" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">$3.4 million</a> [eff.org] is less than the average cost of ONE patent infringement lawsuit... and moreover, they're running a $400k annual deficit over there right now.</p><p>There's a reason why the EFF isn't lead counsel on any multi-million dollar pro bono lawsuits, and it's not because they "didn't get the memo".  Rather, it's because that's like asking your local Boy Scout troop to fly down and singlehandedly fix Haiti.  It bugs me when people assume that lawyers magically grow on trees to fight your political crusades for free.  There is a very low ratio of <b> <i>real</i> </b> support for things like the EFF... compared to Slashdot babble about software patents, stealing MP3's, cracking video game DRM, and all of the other things people do to make-believe that they are "heroes of the revolution" or some such laughable bullshit.  More people should put at least a few bucks where their mouths are and lend some support.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't Warden have sent requests to the EFF to provide lawyers so he could fight an evil corporation to use freely publicly available information ? About once a month or so , somebody comments about a landlord doing something abusive to a tenant , or a school district violating its student 's rights , or citizens being wronged by the police or Feds .
Somebody else always responds , " Why do n't they just get the ACLU to step in ?
" True , the ACLU has over a half-million members [ wikipedia.org ] .
Between it 's political advocacy and charitable foundation arms , it has over $ 120 million per year of revenue [ aclu.org ] .
Yet STILL , it can only be bothered to get involved with a tiny subset of possible cases .
It is ultimately a political and public policy organization , and has to pick and choose the battles that will give it the biggest strategic impact with the smallest possible commitment of resources.Meanwhile , the entire EFF staff could comfortably hang out at my house and watch a football game [ eff.org ] .
Their annual revenue of $ 3.4 million [ eff.org ] is less than the average cost of ONE patent infringement lawsuit... and moreover , they 're running a $ 400k annual deficit over there right now.There 's a reason why the EFF is n't lead counsel on any multi-million dollar pro bono lawsuits , and it 's not because they " did n't get the memo " .
Rather , it 's because that 's like asking your local Boy Scout troop to fly down and singlehandedly fix Haiti .
It bugs me when people assume that lawyers magically grow on trees to fight your political crusades for free .
There is a very low ratio of real support for things like the EFF... compared to Slashdot babble about software patents , stealing MP3 's , cracking video game DRM , and all of the other things people do to make-believe that they are " heroes of the revolution " or some such laughable bullshit .
More people should put at least a few bucks where their mouths are and lend some support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't Warden have sent requests to the EFF to provide lawyers so he could fight an evil corporation to use freely publicly available information?About once a month or so, somebody comments about a landlord doing something abusive to a tenant, or a school district violating its student's rights, or citizens being wronged by the police or Feds.
Somebody else always responds, "Why don't they just get the ACLU to step in?
"True, the ACLU has over a half-million members [wikipedia.org].
Between it's political advocacy and charitable foundation arms, it has over $120 million per year of revenue [aclu.org].
Yet STILL, it can only be bothered to get involved with a tiny subset of possible cases.
It is ultimately a political and public policy organization, and has to pick and choose the battles that will give it the biggest strategic impact with the smallest possible commitment of resources.Meanwhile, the entire EFF staff could comfortably hang out at my house and watch a football game [eff.org].
Their annual revenue of $3.4 million [eff.org] is less than the average cost of ONE patent infringement lawsuit... and moreover, they're running a $400k annual deficit over there right now.There's a reason why the EFF isn't lead counsel on any multi-million dollar pro bono lawsuits, and it's not because they "didn't get the memo".
Rather, it's because that's like asking your local Boy Scout troop to fly down and singlehandedly fix Haiti.
It bugs me when people assume that lawyers magically grow on trees to fight your political crusades for free.
There is a very low ratio of  real  support for things like the EFF... compared to Slashdot babble about software patents, stealing MP3's, cracking video game DRM, and all of the other things people do to make-believe that they are "heroes of the revolution" or some such laughable bullshit.
More people should put at least a few bucks where their mouths are and lend some support.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688550</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1270053600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(not that it was actually destroyed), but why destroy the dataset? Just post to slashdot, wait for someone to send you a link to chilling effects or eff, then follow up with chilling effects or eff, then release the dataset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( not that it was actually destroyed ) , but why destroy the dataset ?
Just post to slashdot , wait for someone to send you a link to chilling effects or eff , then follow up with chilling effects or eff , then release the dataset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(not that it was actually destroyed), but why destroy the dataset?
Just post to slashdot, wait for someone to send you a link to chilling effects or eff, then follow up with chilling effects or eff, then release the dataset.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691046</id>
	<title>Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, sec. 3-2</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1270064100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You will not collect users&rsquo; content or information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission.</p></div></blockquote><p>An empty robots.txt is not blank-check permission to crawl and use the data for whatever you want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You will not collect users    content or information , or otherwise access Facebook , using automated means ( such as harvesting bots , robots , spiders , or scrapers ) without our permission.An empty robots.txt is not blank-check permission to crawl and use the data for whatever you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will not collect users’ content or information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission.An empty robots.txt is not blank-check permission to crawl and use the data for whatever you want.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688936</id>
	<title>Re:If Facebook had done this...</title>
	<author>moteyalpha</author>
	<datestamp>1270055400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that many of these data sets are public and easily accessible to analysis. I would find it interesting to simply use various forums like slashdot and have a ranking of who had the most insightful comments by user name. Certainly the data is available as people make it so. It seems that there is a schizophrenic aspect to this, people want to be recognized for what they represent and when they become too famous they get nervous about it.<br>
I am sure that much of this data is already available in an organized form in many places like Google analytics.<br>
I want to know who is the biggest Karma whore, how many times is XKCD linked , and why does that guy named AC have a fascination with goats.<br>
It is also possible to look at commercial pages and identify which ads are placed and then determine who is spending the most money on ads. It then becomes a tool to see what competition is doing. I suspect that much of this data is already available to a number of organizations by a simple data base query.<br>
So if China, Russia, NSA, Iran... data bases every bit of this info in its "secret" data bases that respect no bounds, and the public has no access to it, are we being cheated by being too private?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that many of these data sets are public and easily accessible to analysis .
I would find it interesting to simply use various forums like slashdot and have a ranking of who had the most insightful comments by user name .
Certainly the data is available as people make it so .
It seems that there is a schizophrenic aspect to this , people want to be recognized for what they represent and when they become too famous they get nervous about it .
I am sure that much of this data is already available in an organized form in many places like Google analytics .
I want to know who is the biggest Karma whore , how many times is XKCD linked , and why does that guy named AC have a fascination with goats .
It is also possible to look at commercial pages and identify which ads are placed and then determine who is spending the most money on ads .
It then becomes a tool to see what competition is doing .
I suspect that much of this data is already available to a number of organizations by a simple data base query .
So if China , Russia , NSA , Iran... data bases every bit of this info in its " secret " data bases that respect no bounds , and the public has no access to it , are we being cheated by being too private ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that many of these data sets are public and easily accessible to analysis.
I would find it interesting to simply use various forums like slashdot and have a ranking of who had the most insightful comments by user name.
Certainly the data is available as people make it so.
It seems that there is a schizophrenic aspect to this, people want to be recognized for what they represent and when they become too famous they get nervous about it.
I am sure that much of this data is already available in an organized form in many places like Google analytics.
I want to know who is the biggest Karma whore, how many times is XKCD linked , and why does that guy named AC have a fascination with goats.
It is also possible to look at commercial pages and identify which ads are placed and then determine who is spending the most money on ads.
It then becomes a tool to see what competition is doing.
I suspect that much of this data is already available to a number of organizations by a simple data base query.
So if China, Russia, NSA, Iran... data bases every bit of this info in its "secret" data bases that respect no bounds, and the public has no access to it, are we being cheated by being too private?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688468</id>
	<title>gray-market black-market</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1270053240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All data that exists, and someone can sell somehow, is for sale somewhere, somehow.  That's the law of money, which is rather strong. So forget the right to privacy law, it's not working for a long time now, there is no way to enforce it, just like the law prohibiting drugs, it just doesn't work.  I don't know the solution, or if it's good or bad, but that's the situation, like it or not. Wikileaks, for example, is a result of this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All data that exists , and someone can sell somehow , is for sale somewhere , somehow .
That 's the law of money , which is rather strong .
So forget the right to privacy law , it 's not working for a long time now , there is no way to enforce it , just like the law prohibiting drugs , it just does n't work .
I do n't know the solution , or if it 's good or bad , but that 's the situation , like it or not .
Wikileaks , for example , is a result of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All data that exists, and someone can sell somehow, is for sale somewhere, somehow.
That's the law of money, which is rather strong.
So forget the right to privacy law, it's not working for a long time now, there is no way to enforce it, just like the law prohibiting drugs, it just doesn't work.
I don't know the solution, or if it's good or bad, but that's the situation, like it or not.
Wikileaks, for example, is a result of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688434</id>
	<title>Re:If Facebook had done this...</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1270053060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this the golden egg of Facebook, I though this is what they were selling.  That data is fascinating, it is completely anonymous, yet at the same time very insightful for marketing purposes.  I think Facebook is just upset because they plan on selling the same data that Pete was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the golden egg of Facebook , I though this is what they were selling .
That data is fascinating , it is completely anonymous , yet at the same time very insightful for marketing purposes .
I think Facebook is just upset because they plan on selling the same data that Pete was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the golden egg of Facebook, I though this is what they were selling.
That data is fascinating, it is completely anonymous, yet at the same time very insightful for marketing purposes.
I think Facebook is just upset because they plan on selling the same data that Pete was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690278</id>
	<title>Re:Publicly available</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270061160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If facebook wants to sell that data, then they must build up some kind of artificial ownership construct to enforce scarcity of that data. Otherwise, whoever else gathers and sells it first wins.</p><p>I don't see why they would care about things like law, public availability, or sense. They have their goal (use this data to make money), and they set out to achieve it (they must in some way come to own the data). It doesn't matter a whit to them how it's done--they simply must own the data by hook or crook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If facebook wants to sell that data , then they must build up some kind of artificial ownership construct to enforce scarcity of that data .
Otherwise , whoever else gathers and sells it first wins.I do n't see why they would care about things like law , public availability , or sense .
They have their goal ( use this data to make money ) , and they set out to achieve it ( they must in some way come to own the data ) .
It does n't matter a whit to them how it 's done--they simply must own the data by hook or crook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If facebook wants to sell that data, then they must build up some kind of artificial ownership construct to enforce scarcity of that data.
Otherwise, whoever else gathers and sells it first wins.I don't see why they would care about things like law, public availability, or sense.
They have their goal (use this data to make money), and they set out to achieve it (they must in some way come to own the data).
It doesn't matter a whit to them how it's done--they simply must own the data by hook or crook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688800</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook does stuff like this a lot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270054860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not wrong though. People on FB constantly get outraged at new policies, interfaces and features, but I don't know of anyone who has actually left the site. I am just as bad myself; all I've done is remove everything from my profile and just use it as a hub to stay in contact with people all around me, I haven't gone as far as stopping using the site, and I don't think I will. Nor will many people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not wrong though .
People on FB constantly get outraged at new policies , interfaces and features , but I do n't know of anyone who has actually left the site .
I am just as bad myself ; all I 've done is remove everything from my profile and just use it as a hub to stay in contact with people all around me , I have n't gone as far as stopping using the site , and I do n't think I will .
Nor will many people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not wrong though.
People on FB constantly get outraged at new policies, interfaces and features, but I don't know of anyone who has actually left the site.
I am just as bad myself; all I've done is remove everything from my profile and just use it as a hub to stay in contact with people all around me, I haven't gone as far as stopping using the site, and I don't think I will.
Nor will many people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31697008</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1270053000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They can't do that to our users.  Only we can do that to our users<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't do that to our users .
Only we can do that to our users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't do that to our users.
Only we can do that to our users .
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31748690</id>
	<title>Facebook and the likes is evil.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270571400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they are scared of you knowing the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they are scared of you knowing the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they are scared of you knowing the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688600</id>
	<title>On what grounds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270053840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legal action?  On what grounds, and for what damages?  What did this guy have to fear?  Jail time?  Court imposed fines?  He doesn't need a lawyer to defend him in this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legal action ?
On what grounds , and for what damages ?
What did this guy have to fear ?
Jail time ?
Court imposed fines ?
He does n't need a lawyer to defend him in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legal action?
On what grounds, and for what damages?
What did this guy have to fear?
Jail time?
Court imposed fines?
He doesn't need a lawyer to defend him in this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31693690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31695512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31692216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31692250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31697490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31692546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31758988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1430256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31697490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31695512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31693690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31692250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31692546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31758988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31692216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1430256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31688234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31689336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31691478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1430256.31690374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
