alt Hacker NewsMy suggestion is get your business the f*ck off Facebook.
I would never in a thousand years accept such a one-sided, despicable business relationship as their proposed terms seek to establish.
It's already bad enough they hoover up your customer lists and cross-link to their own - for purposes of gaining insight on individuals who never consented to it.
Now they're trying to use their monopoly over a form of social networking to bully you into arbitrary contract terms for a largely unrelated product.
You don't need Meta as much as you think. And in aggregate, they need their customers far more than those customers need them.
There are much friendlier ecosystems in which to engage with your users.
Regarding the customer lists, I have personal experience.
My bank advertises with Meta and included my account in some kind of upload list (probably Meta Ads Manager). I noticed their logo while poking around in Facebook's settings, under Audience-based Advertising. I was livid.
As far as I'm concerned they had no business telling a creepy company like Meta who I bank with. I certainly never consented to that.
I dug up my original banking agreement - a 5-page document on aging, yellowed parchment that I signed over a decade ago. Nothing in there about them being able to unilaterally change terms without notice. I also printed out their latest, 30+ page standard banking agreement which (after making inquiries) they seemed to think applied to my account.
I brought both in to my bank manager and put them on the table. At a high level, I pointed how ridiculous the size had grown to, and he was sympathetic.
In terms of details, I'd highlighted several portions that pertain to privacy, and we walked through the differences together. I underscored how none of them were needed to provide me banking services, how the benefits they conveyed were solely to TD, and how they were harmful to me as a customer.
In the end, he agreed to formally acknowledge on file that I did not agree to the new terms.
You may disagree over how much effect that will have in practice, but the acknowledgment was not just a bureaucratic exercise. It established very firm evidence that I never agreed to the new contract, or any terms the bank might rely on as a basis for the objectionable practices. It would become material if those practices cause me damage in the future, significant enough to litigate. i.e. They knew they lacked agreement, and continued to provide me banking services.
He also worked with internal departments to toggle all available opt-out flags.
I was fortunate in this case the manager comprehended my concerns and seemed to want to keep me as a customer. I recognize not everyone would necessarily get as far.
It really disgusts me that some of the most degenerate practices of silicon valley are spreading to other industries. With lawyers more broadly adopting some of the most viciously one-sided legal language big tech pioneered.
I for one am not on board, and refuse to be bullied into providing some kind of imaginary consent. I say 'imaginary', because I don't think anyone in their right mind who reads and understands such terms would ever agree to them willingly.