Until such time as I agree to a confidentiality clause, I thought I'd post the latest back and forth between myself and Facebook's lawyers. I asked for attny fees and they've refused. They're also attempting to prevent me - and my heirs(as if I'll ever have any)- from ever discussing or even negatively referring to Facebook for infinity under penalty of 10k fine plus further legal ramifications and damages. lmao.
On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:43 PM, xxx wrote:
Hi David,
Our response to your counteroffer is attached. As you'll see, Facebook is not willing to agree to any of the additional terms you propose. Please let me know if you want to discuss this via telephone.
Regards,
Ryan (lead counsel)
Hi, Ryan:
Thanks for getting back.
First of all, the 1.00 in damages was the suit I began on my own behalf to call Facebook out on their ridiculous and unquestionably hypocritical policies and procedures when it comes to spamming/Friend Requesting. And I stand by that amount, as I do not need, nor want the money. (I'm not even going to dignify the 'questioning my motives' line with a response.)
Once the suit was made public, and I received several hundred emails from people across the country informing me of their similarly frustrating and hair pulling experiences with the 'Brickwall' that is Facebook "User Support" - be it anything from 'forced admission of guilt' to bigger problems like information sharing, credit card fraud, and Internet predators- is when it dawned on me that these problems are much bigger than my ability to Friend Request someone, and could potentially turn into a much larger issue involving privacy issues, a users legal rights to a fair defense, and a class action suit.
It was based on these developments that the attorneys in California have said they would be interested in being a part of, and one which, if necessary, I am prepared to pursue in order to bring to light the fact that our lawmakers are currently leaving the largest information sharing entity the world has ever seen virtually unregulated with regard to its moral and legal accountability toward its users.
Thus, for the past few months, I have not been viewing this as a "one-dollar" suit. I have been viewing it on a much larger scale, potentially involving many more people who have been railroaded by Facebook's Orwellian business model.
Having said that, here's where I came up with the counter offer.
1. I don't believe you and I ever discussed financial anything. If we did I apologize, but that's what I get for agreeing to several months in extensions.
2. It obviously would cost Facebook many more thousands of dollars to defend a class action suit; not to mention the bad publicity. That's a no-brainer. Therefore, I thought I'd at least ask for my attorney fees to be covered. Didn't think it was a 'deal-breaker'.
3. I'm not saying I'm changing my mind, but I think you'll agree that when it comes down to it, this 'settlement' is incredibly one-sided.
I'm agreeing to dismiss all current and future claims, to agree not to talk about it, and agreeing to wave any value my suggestions would have should they be implemented and successful; all in exchange for a phone call.
Thus, I thought I'd ask for some kind of tangible compensation that would have provided me with some sort of remedy for the abuse I've endured simply taking Facebook up on their own suggestions, and one that wouldn't necessarily affect them monetarily - i.e. ad credits. (I could've asked for a million dollars in ad credits and all it is to them is a quarter inch of space.)
3. I understand Facebook is not willing to guarantee that any changes I suggest will be implemented- that I can live with. What I can't live with, and what I was completely offended by when I looked at the agreement, is not only would I be giving up the ship in exchange for a simple discussion, but it's entirely possible I could end up the defendant if I slip in conversation at a cocktail party ten years from now.
Furthermore, you are attempting to legally bind me from so much as 'thinking' a negative thought about Facebook with the threat of financial and legal recourse. That is unacceptable. I would agree to a time limit of one year from the conversation on the gag order but nothing more.
You can remove the financial incentives if you like. I don't care. But I would rather go to court for the next five years and fight the information gathering policies myself and countless other users find irresponsible, immoral, and a clear violation of our rights, rather than agree to a gag order for the rest of my life under those penalties.
Regardless of whatever they/you decide, the fact that all this hoopla has to occur just to try and get Facebook to do the right thing by their users, and create some kind of system of dialogue, is pretty sad in itself. It's the stuff revolutions are made of.
Let me know your thoughts,
David
No comments:
Post a Comment