Re:No different to any google service (Score 1)

No, it's actually somewhat different than with google services, and the agreement for sublicensing is a real problem, in two distinct ways, as I see it.

First, the IP licensing issues Mark mentions above^^ and I am 100% in agreement. There's plenty that's I won't put up there.

Second, excepting for 'anonymous coward,' who by now certainly has attained public personality status (jk) most of us are NOT public figures, we are private citizens, and have come to expect a certain right to privacy associated with that. There's good arguments that this sort of content falls under the right to privacy, something the US courts have upheld for private citizens against the mainstream press plenty often.
If fb lets it stand as written, they're going to pay pretty dearly for not changing it, because they don't HAVE to do it that way.

If you look at the ToS for blogger (google) or flickr (yahoo), you don't see the same blatant rights grabbing.

Both are pretty clear that they need sufficient rights to your IP to be able to display it to your audience, and to back up on tape, not for other purposes, i.e. "just 'cause you're enabling us to post something to share something with your friends and family doesn't mean we can turn around and sell it to someone ELSE."

Additionally, Google points out that should you place your work under a creative commons license, then you allow others *including them* to use your work under that license. But it's explicit. You have to set each image up that way, it's not the default.