Zuck still owns you (Photo: Tech Globex)

Any Internet user knows that his or her personal information always belongs to someone else, so when an opportunity to claim back your identity comes about, you have to grab it. A Facebook status promising copyright privileges to users who reposted that status went viral this weekend. But if you think Zuck would let you own the rights to that album of Mr. Fluffles, then we have some shares in Zynga we'd like to sell you.

The obvious hoax has been around at least once before, but Snopes updated its debunking in honor of the newest strain. "Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their Facebook accounts nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls," Snopes explains.

UPDATE: Facebook has decided to fact-check the copyright meme itself, noting that "Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been."

But while Facebook's terms of service state: "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook," it's somewhat of a semantic distinction. Even if you "own" your data, Facebook has the right to use it as outlined in its data use policy.

Essentially, if you want to live in Zuck's house, you have to live by Zuck's rules. Your personal data is too valuable for Facebook to let lowly individuals dictate terms.

That said, Facebook does take the step of anonymizing your info. As The Daily News points out, Facebook's privacy policy states, “We provide data to our advertising partners or customers after we have removed your name or any other personally identifying information from it, or have combined it with other people's data in a way that it is no longer associated with you.”

One other clue the viral privacy status (below) was too good to be true? Citing the Rome Statute that governs crimes against humanity:

In response to the new Facebook guidelines hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention). For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!

(Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place them under protection of copyright laws. By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook's direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

I don't even know. (Photo: Macleans.ca)

Reuters social media editor Anthony De Rosa pointed us to what appears to be a new section in Facebook's help center which addresses the many commonly held myths about the platform. You know your brand is seriously distrusted when you have to devise an entire help section dedicated to dispelling the half-truths told about it.

The vast majority of the questions relate to privacy issues--the eternal thorn in the company's side--and how Facebook uses the troves of personal data mined from its users. Some examples:

• Do advertisers have access to my personal information?
• What personal information is shared with sites that use social plugins?
• Does Facebook sell my information?

Facebook says the answer to all of these answers is "no," and while technically true, the language definitely leaves some wiggle room. After all, Facebook may not sell your information, but it damn sure does sell ads against your information.

Another myth the new section addresses is "Can people see my private messages on my timeline?", which was undoubtedly spawned by Monday's fracas, when users across the web began reporting that they were seeing private messages crop up on their timelines. Facebook staunchly refuted the claims, but that did little to comfort paranoid users who have come to deeply distrust the social network behemoth.

Maybe The Amazing Kreskin was right, and Zuck does need a babysitter to help bolster his credibility.