[xpaulbettsx]

This boilerplate exists in literally every site that hosts user-created content in some form and displays it to other people. If it didn't exist, the site would immediately be violating your copyright if they showed your content to anyone other than you

[gnicholas]

That doesn’t explain why it needs to stay in effect after you terminate your relationship with them.

[jrockway]

Backups. Why commit to reliable destruction of data when you don't have to?

Google has a guarantee on when your deleted data disappears from tapes in vaults, and it was something that every engineer at the company had to think about (not to mention a ton of work in actually implementing it). You may wish for Some New Startup with 2 engineers to do it for you, but it's hard, takes time, and nobody actually cares. Look at how many people use Patreon despite that policy. Why spend years of engineering work when your lawyer can get the problem fixed in 5 minutes? It's just economics.

[gamblor956]

I love when non lawyers try to claim that two completely different things are actually the same...

The objectionable part is not the exclusive license. The objectionable part is the sublicense right, which lets Facebook sell creators works to third parties without paying the creators, and even after the underlying business relationship with the Creator has ended.