Asking for user feedback? Revolutionary, I know—but when it comes to setting the legal policies for one of the most popular sites in the world, somehow I don’t think direct democracy is the best way to determine IP rights. (Okay, I’m sure they’re not going the direct democracy route. Who does these days—I mean, really? Even Digg isn’t really democratic anymore.)

Yes, rather than letting their users directly write and/or edit their Terms of Service (Wiki-style FTW!), Facebook is encouraging its users to comment on a set of guiding principles they will use to shape specific language and policies in the future. The proposed Facebook Principles and Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (woot for recognizing that rights come with responsibilities!) are now available for comment from users until March 29.

So why all the fuss? Facebook made a change to its TOS this month indicating that members couldn’t revoke the license they grant to Facebook to use their content even when they delete their account. People didn’t like it. People didn’t like it so much they couldn’t shut up about how they didn’t consent to the change, and how they were leaving the site because of it. Facebook took it back, so it should be over, right?

Not so much—and not everyone (okay, it looks like almost no one) is impressed by FB’s efforts. I like what Stacy D. Kramer of paidContent had to say about it, that Facebook is opening this up:

in the apparent hope of either coming to a group decision or giving users enough of a chance to make themselves heard that they’ll feel like they participated even if it doesn’t go their way.

Read Write Web, on the other hand, says “Facebook’s management has lost its grip on reality” and this effort shows their relationship with their users is “delusional.” Meanwhile, Econsultancy says Facebook needs “common sense, not democracy.”

Though she didn’t bother to hide her boredom with the conference call, BoomTown’s Kara Swisher said that it was “like being at the Constitutional Convention, except for geeks,” with their calls of transparency and openness. (Um, kind of, except the opposite. Attendees at the Convention were sworn to secrecy during proceedings. Transparency, not so much. But you get the intended analogy, I’m sure.)

I’m guessing this effort is direct evidence that Facebook is looking to replace this clause with a less-offensive one designed to grant the same right in perpetuity, but this time, they’ll be able to point directly at these efforts and say that they asked members for their input. The most vocal critics are likely to comment on the Principles and Statement.

How much do you think Facebook will be able to give their critics if they want/claim to need this right?

Comments

The Good Ship Blogosphere foundered against the rocky shores of the island of Capital, as far as we can tell. If Piggy’s not dead already, someone’s groping for a rock, a decent grip, and the right angle for the killing blow.

Remember, the rising blogosphere offered the prospect of something better than all the tech journals in print. Real-time access to breaking information, along with the kind of commentary one couldn’t possibly find in the ad-dominated trade mags, existed as the currency of the blog realm.

Then some folks woke up one morning and realized currency, real Gulfstream-flying, Kobe steak-eating cash money where lots of zeroes parade behind an inconsequential digit, dangled within reach. And as human nature is wont to do, some of the hands that reach turned into fists that kill.

Witness the last 24 hours of the blogs, highlighted on tracking site Techmeme. Michael Arrington wants to crush CNET, which seems to be doing a good job of that itself, as Arrington wrote in TechCrunch.

Kara Swisher at BoomTown snarked away at that idea. She even used showtunes to do it.

“Could it have something to do with the fact that he