If you're asking yourself what a Terms of Service is, then perhaps you have not read one. Terms of Service are generally those long things full of legalese which you agree to in order to use a certain piece of software or service — you know, the giant block of text that you have to "accept" in order to move on. Does it matter that it seems like we know few people who read them?
Here's a fun fact we discovered thanks to Lifehacker: according to Carnegie Mellon, it would take the average Internet user about 76 days to read all their privacy policies. Of course, for every privacy policy there are also Terms of Service, and most people we know don't really want to spend all that time reading either of these things. So what do you miss when you skip reading the Terms of Service?
1. Who owns the content on the site/service
2. How content you upload or create on the service/site can be used
3. What the service provider/site owner can do with your information
4. What the rules are for using the service/site
Of course the Terms of Service also cover much more, but those are the big pieces that affect most users. As someone who does not care for a video of my grandmother's birthday that's on YouTube and is "private" to be used in an ad campaign, I have made it a point to actually read what it is I am agreeing to before clicking accept. Although I can't promise that I will read the entirety of every single agreement top to bottom, I will skim and pick out those four points and see if it's something I can live with.
While you may have friends who are quick to complain about how certain sites work, have you ever asked if they read the Terms they agreed to before using the site? It's important to look at what exactly you're agreeing to before signing up, whether this is for your local softball team or an internet service, and we wonder why most people read the fine print for something in the "real world" but skip reading when it's something on their tech.
For tips on how to read those Terms quickly, check out this helpful post from Lifehacker.
Do you read the Terms of Service? Why or why not?
(Image 1 : Flickr member Jean Pichot licensed for use under Creative Commons Image 2: YouTube)
100 DIY Ideas for the 3-Day Weekend
Danielle's Charming, Classic Walk-Up
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
White Enamel Flatwa...
How To Cook Fluffy, Tasty Quinoa
Perfect Summer Cocktail Recipe: Honey Bourbon Lemonade
Sometimes, but usually I don't.
I don't think it's the consumer's fault for not reading these things. It's full of legalese, jargon that most people can't understand, and they're usually reeeaaalllly long.
I also don't think it's fair to blame those who "complain" for not reading the terms. In many cases the document they're supposed to read is written to be completely opaque, and, in today's society, there are certain services that you are almost required to have.
Take Facebook for example. Corporate employers would usually try and find you on Facebook and see what's out there on you before hiring you. If they can't find you on the FB, it sends red flags (what are they hiding?, are they antisocial?). If you're from a more recent generation and you have no internet presence on any social media, it will signal to your employer something about you that may or may not be true.
Also, many of these companies write ToS to be heavily in their favour, without any room for negotiation of the ToS. Google drive, for instance, owns anything I put onto their server. Like, they own the data I put into my budget spreadsheet, or the PDF of my flight confirmation... I still use it knowing what I'm giving up, but I don't like it.
So rather than blaming internet users for participating in society, perhaps some of the blame should be directed at companies that change their ToS as soon as they become too large to ignore, or after you've invested a lot of your time and energy into creating a presence on their site. FB did that - I was a member when it was only open to universities. The Terms are so different from when it started.
@Carrotsticks - You can easily survive without Facebook or YouTube and still remain connected to the world and your social circles... you can use Google+ instead. Okay, jokes over. Not participating in social media and social websites is easily defensible - "I don't spend most of my time online, instead I like to ride my bicycle, practice photography, read, and go hiking in my spare time."
You are never required to have or do anything. Everything in life is a choice. The consumer will and usually always has a choice (America has an anit-monopoly law), and should be well informed before signing up or purchasing. I assume they can find synopses online, if they want.
Oh, and society doesn't lie online. It's on the street.
In a word: no.
@dkdonkeydong13
But even that small amount of time you spend online is ruled by the terms of service set by a corporation to favour their interests without any control by the user. You opt in or opt out - no middle ground.
These websites are becoming so much a part of society (on the street, in families, firendship circles, the workplace) that it is becoming increasingly difficult to opt out. You make it sound like a choice without consequences, but there are real social consequences for non-participation, such as being passed up for a job because of your lack of an online presence.
Take telephone service, for example. You don't really have the option to opt out.. do you? You could argue you don't NEED to have a telephone (cell or landline), but there's definitely an arguement to be made that you really should have one. If you don't, there are social and safety consequences. There are also consequences that affect your access to services and information that are not available through other means (from accessing government services to ordering a pizza). But, the telecom companies that control the phone system also control the terms you must agree to in order to use their service. There are laws in place that limit their ability to impose certain terms, and I would think that when handling similar types of information (communication data) that websites should have similar limits placed on their abilities.
I skim, similarly to the original poster.
Who says the lack of an online presence will prevent you from getting a job? Facebook??
At the public library where I work, I am the person who often is assigned to research the online presence of potential employees. (Generally only for upper level jobs.) (Such as they are!) We mainly look for things that would reflect badly on the Library, or that indicate things about the candidate that would or wouldn't make them a good fit for the job. For instance, one person used her publicly accessible Facebook page to rant in a hostile way about previous employers. Just as that is bad form in an interview, it's a danger sign for prospective employers. If a candidate had publicly accessible nude photos of themselves, we'd probably pass, too -- that is absolutely their choice, but it's OUR choice to reflect the more conservative values of our community, knowing that some patrons are likely to look up new employees. We can only interview a few candidates, so we decide which applicants will be asked in based on their qualifications, phone interviews, references, and online presence. A recent department head was chosen largely because of his outstanding online portfolio and lots of references to him in online local newspaper articles, praising his performance on a previous job. So it can help, as well as hurt.
But we have never even considered not interviewing a candidate based on the LACK of an online presence. At most, we'd assume that they were a private person with the limiters on, or that they maybe had recently changed their name (marriage/divorce) so locating them was complicated. It's barely a blip. Unless you wanted to work in a very out-there kind of job, like advertising, I find it improbable that not having a web presence would matter at all.
Many employers have social media policies. Candidates who, before being hired, would commonly be in violation of these policies might not be as hireable as someone who isn't know to have that conflict. You have to weigh the risks and be a little intelligent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ23kosLFec
@SherryBinNH
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184658/Is-joining-Facebook-sign-youre-psychopath-Some-employers-psychologists-say-suspicious.html
I mean, of course there are two sides to every coin. Some (most) employers won't think twice about it, but there are certainly instances where it's a red flag.
Eddie Izzard used to do a terrific bit about these agreements....along with his musings as to why all Apple software is named after military tanks.
I can't believe that it would be required to have Facebook because it would look suspicious otherwise. I don't and I don't want to because honestly I have no desire for random people from my past friend me. The people who are important in my life know how to get a hold of me and thats all I need. I have a twitter and pinterest account which I never use. Social media bores me, I like to read informational blogs like this and find out things I want to know. I also shop and bank etc. So I love the Internet but don't want to be addicted to social media.
all the same, a lot of job postings (esp. in private industry, media related fields, bigger cities) request examples of online presence. i set up a fake facebook just to sign up for pinterest - after years of resisting pressure from actual friends - haven't looked at it since. is that gonna be a problem for me? i hope not. nothing under my real name is more recent than ten years. but if companies would put it in the application process... and even o magazine mentioned last year or so that if you're not on linkedin people wonder why. i'd never even heard of it. two months later one of my bff's emailed to ask why i'm not on that either.
in the rat race, online presence is a real issue.
Yes, I REALLY read them, 'Course it doesn't take me 76 days as I rarely make it through the first paragraph before I opt out. My personal info is strictly on a *need to know* basis and those who need to know can contact me 24/7 if need be.
FB, et al? Not...in...this...lifetime. And it's not just accepting ToS (and voluntarily relinquishing my privacy and ultimately my liberty) that disturbs me. It's also the total absence of consideration by others which makes me avoid social media altogether. I budgeted for an entire year to make a cross-country trip to see loved ones. Two wks out, I discovered my itenerary had been shared on FB - including my flight info & arrival/departure times. I cancelled my trip & notified said loved ones as to why (by e-mail without naming names).
My phones rang incessantly for two full wks & went unanswered. I had opened enough e-mails to know better (they went unanswered as well). I'm just thankful there were no real emergencies during that time. Honestly, I don't understand the fasination with social media.
*fascination* (sheesh...how hard can it be to incorporate an edit function?)
I read those on Facebook, especially the part about their rights on content uploaded by members. That's why I'm not on Facebook.
Just like the bible, if you really read everything on terms and condition, no one will ever sign up.
@Adora - hahahaha, great comment.
@Carrotsticks - Just because it's written down doesn't make it true. Just because you saw it on TV, or read it online, doesn't make it true, either. Take everything with a grain of salt. Besdies, who uses Facebook for professional contacts? Plainly, that doesn't make sense to me.
I re-iterate, a person will always and does always have a choice in life. I understand your telephone reference, linking it as an advancement in human technology as well as a tool for social interaction. But, you can opt out. USPS is still around and so are stamps. Life may be more inconvenient without a telephone, but your life won't be more convenient with Facebook, Google+, YouTube, etc.
A choice may be difficult or it could be an easy one, but no matter, the choice is on your shoulders only. If you don't read the fine print and get mad when it doesn't favor your position, tough cookies. Get better at speed reading.
I never read the fine print unless it's for a house/apartment rental agreement, car insurance policy, medical/dental/vision plan(s), and other long-term investments. If I want privacy or seclusion, I go to the woods.
@dkdonkeykond13
I agree with you, yes I can opt out of having a phone or whatever technology and suffer the consequences. I also agree that people should read or at least understand the ToS of the things they're signing up for.
But... I'm not going to blame anyone for signing up and complaining about the terms. They are weighted heavily in favour of the companies that provide the services and are often the product of a society with few laws to protect consumers in this new social media environment.
There are certain terms and conditions applied to any contract, such as a lease. If it's standard in a state or province to allow the landlord to kick you out whenever they like, then I'd like to be able to complain about that provision without being blamed for signing a lease. Yes, I could move to another province, but is that realistic? I'm really happy there are laws here that protect me from those kinds of provisions.
My argument is that social media is becoming like the telephone. You can live without it, but it's becoming socially unacceptable to opt out entirely. It is illegal for a telephone co. to listen to your conversations yet it is fully legal for facebook to own all your content, even pictures of your kids you upload to their site. It's not only to use your information for advertising or demographic profiling - they can use your photo in an advertisement, or sell it to a stock photo agency, if they wanted to. Do they? No... but they have written their terms so they can if they want to. And... they change the terms whenever they choose, and continuing to use facebook implies your acceptance of their continually changing terms, as stated in their terms.
As such, I (as a person, not a corporation or a judge) will not blame my friends for being unhappy with the current state of social media terms of service. I will happily discuss whether or not what is happening is right, and talk about how it should be.
One of my peeves is when people argue to not worry because the ToS parts won't be enforced ... because they can and often do (AT&T bandwidth issues for example).
One word: Humancentipad...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ23kosLFec