What are the worst parts of Facebook's Terms of Service?

Inconsistent interpretation, arbitrary decisions in Facebook's interest, unfair advantages to some application developer, unclear auditing procedures. Like all contracts, Terms of Service are more a framework of understanding then a decision tree. Facebook intentions are poorly understood, and might appear not thought through or permeable to users’ and application developers’ reactions, leading to seemingly inconsistent reactions: http://Power.com operated a web-based client, aka portal for several SNS, a harmless service, according to most; yet it was sued: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090104/2328183283.shtml Several arguments could justify this: coherent user experience, Facebook willing to reduce opportunities of co-existing SNS — none embeddable in the ToS, but mentions of trademark issues and security risks were used in front of a court, presumably as partial pretexts. Facebook has since resolved the password anti-pattern, and its brand survived a Hollywood full-size attack: why still bother? both RockYou http://techcrunch.com/2009/12/27/privacy-theater/  an application developer, and Rapleaf, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304410504575560243259416072.html who has no known direct contract with Facebook (but many or its providers and users are, like the largest Facebook game developer, Zynga) would have appeared in violation or agreements on user privacy; they haven’t, presumably after reaching an undocumented understanding with Facebook on exploring recommendation systems and the large-scale use of their data. This makes the enforcement of the ToS appear inconsistent reaks of favoritism: there's no way to truly know you've violated Facebook's Terms of Service until Facebook comes gunning for you. Typical of the hardest end of this: automated detection of cheatest has beend discussed on Quora: Facebook generally doesn't justify their decisions, to help making sense of the propoer ToS interpretation: Sometimes cheaters and other violators are permitted to break the rules, giving them an unfair advantage. Facebook Inc. interests seem to trump the ToS. They can also be very one-sided, as illlustrated with the recent disgreement with oogle over data portability: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/google-facebook-data/ Those are common traits of on-line platforms, but Facebook is more ambiguous than others, less keen to comment on those decisions, or give practical details, like the  definition of audit in “To ensure your application is safe for users, we can audit it.” Is this an external audit or a  court-ordered ability to rifle through anyone's code or data?