Comment by pta2002

Absolutely. The public doesn’t care what word games you play or what rights you allocate yourself in a terms of service if you pull off something shady you deserve all the bad publicity you get

> but if I did that I'd probably be consenting to using the picture _for that one session_, where I'm in control.

You mean you you'd be wanting to consent to one session, while actually affirmatively consenting to something else. On one hand I agree there would be nothing wrong with limiting the scope of what is legally allowed in a ToS. On the other, I also think it's good that single parties can't just spontaneously wish away conditions of business agreements they don't like (although I imagine with a modicum of effort, you could modify that consent with Meta at any point).

There's a comment in the reddit thread about how consent to Meta is invalid because Meta is essential to participating in modern society - basically saying that being a Meta user is a civil right. Bonkers.

Companies need to be reminded that their operation is subject to our own ToS, the law, and it supercedes theirs. We can change it at any time and the sycophants defending any legal behavior aren't winning any favors. The behavior you see on HN playing defense for violations of privacy is disgusting, but I'm glad it's out in the open for everyone to see how far they'll go.

I don't think it's victim blaming to say that the linked Reddit post is missing critical details (and indeed any details) about what precisely is going on. I agree that it's quite bad if Meta did this without the user specifically asking them to do so.

Welcome to Humans 3.0