David Kirkpatrick - who is working on a book about Facebook, and according to Charles Cooper maintains a "must read blog" about Facebook - thinks the whole "Facebook Revolt" is overblown [link] (italics mine):

Facebook got put through the ringer in this incident in part because many journalists were sloppy and wrote inaccurately. Here's one example, from a blog/column by Mike Wendland at the Detroit Free Press. He wrote: "outrageous is the word to describe the sneaky way Facebook changed the legal gobbldygook in its privacy policy so that it now has an 'irrevocable, perpetual license to use your 'name, likeness, and image' in essentially any way, including within promotions or external advertising." Facebook didn't sneak the changes in. It announced them, albeitly quietly, in a blog post by a hapless company lawyer back on February 4.

But in his inaccuracy Wendland clumsily puts his finger on the problem that Facebook this week faced. The frightening-sounding verbiage he quotes was not changed. It was there all along. Many of us who pay close attention to Facebook have been concerned for some time about how this applies especially to photographs. It's one reason why many professional photographers don't post images to Facebook.
...
One final note--all the unbelievably prolific press coverage of this "revolt" has been somewhat misleading. The numbers of Facebook members who have been protesting was never very large, even by the standards of past protests on things like the News Feed. I don't believe any of the groups were larger than 100,000 before Zuckerberg backed down and reverted to the old terms of service. But one fundamental thing has changed since those earlier hullabaloos. The press itself is using Facebook. What they know they write about. And however unimaginative that may make them sound, their alarmed reporting struck a nerve with the public.

Interesting.  Kirkpatrick also points out the Amazon's terms (for example) have much of the same objectionable terms that are contained in the Facebook TOS.  [via Charles Cooper] 

I must confess personal ambivalence on this issue.  On the one hand I find myself perfectly in agreement with this EFF Deeplinks post by Marcia Hoffman: "Facebook's reaction is a tremendous victory for its users."  [In general I would consider myself an EFF supporter.]  On the other hand, I think people blew this out of proportion, particularly given that Facebook's terms are on par with the terms of many sites which contain user generated content, and more importantly, people can choose to leave Facebook.  Really, when [insert global health crisis] is going on, should we really be worried about the scope of the license in Facebook's terms, and whether Facebook appropriately considered the interests of its users?  I struggle with this one.