4 ms·

Oh for crying out loud, they did not try to "sneak this by". Stop trying to cast a simple snafu regarding a ToS as some evil conspiracy. Remember that the peo

by blhack 14y ago

Oh for crying out loud, they did not try to "sneak this by". Stop trying to cast a simple snafu regarding a ToS as some evil conspiracy. Remember that the people running this company are you peers. It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today. They're your friends, or just like your friends. Knock it off.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Just because they work in a similar area does not make them "friends". Besides it is good for an industry to keep it's peers in check. See also: Banking.
mburshteyn 14y ago
They may be a distinct brand, but Instagram is still owned by Facebook, the company openly attempting to shift society's views on privacy.
mnicole 14y ago
My personal friendships with people employed by Google, EA and Microsoft have no affiliation with how much I support those companies.
chmars 14y ago
It's a business, not a personal relationship. My peers and friends at least would never use my pictures to create ads and in any case, my relations to peer and friends are not based on comprehensive and one-sided ToS …
- chadillac83 14y ago
  By posting on HN you are agreeing to my peer-friendship ToS. As part of this ToS you hereby grant me unfettered access to your personal finances. edit: give me a $1
  - chmars 14y ago
    Thumbs up for letting me go to bed in a very happy mood … :)
    - Vivtek 14y ago
      And at the low cost of only a dollar! I think grandparent's onto something big here.
guelo 14y ago
None of my friends communicate to millions of people via lawyers and PR departments.
23david 14y ago
I disagree. This was a carefully worded response. Notice "commit to you that we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion. As we review your feedback and stories in the press, we’re going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos." They expected this. It's a classic move from the Facebook playbook. Push out a far-reaching privacy policy or feature update. Release a message or press release saying that "we're listening". Make token changes and say "we've listened and made changes". And just in case people start to sue, vigorously lobby and donate to government officials to keep the regulatory heat off their backs. They are trying to get away with as much as they can. These stupid companies are going to be the reason why 10 years from now the Internet is going to be a morass of government regulation. Don't work for or support companies that act like this. Shame on them. Period. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a domain name or start an Internet company without taking a licensing exam.
- nokcha 14y ago
  >I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a domain name ... without taking a licensing exam. Who would impose such a requirement of licensure? Certainly not the government --- that would be a prior restraint on freedom of speech/press and therefore unconstitutional.
  - pepr 14y ago
    Well, they would first impose it and then somebody sues them and it starts bouncing around various courts for the next 5 years. It would take some serious time until there would be a final ruling.
ryguytilidie 14y ago
Man, this is some absolutely insane over the top hyperbole. No one tried to cast this as a conspiracy, they simply called it what it is, a company monetizing by making the user experience worse. "Remember that the people running this company are you peers. It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today." I don't know whats craziest here. First, equating "burning them at the stake" to "deleting their accounts on that persons website" is absolute lunacy and I don't know how anyone could take your points seriously. Second, pretending that because these people look like my friends, they should get a free pass on changing their terms to better monetize user content is just lame, just because someone looks like me and is a millionaire doesn't make them immune to incredibly correct criticism.
- marshray 14y ago
  But most likely it wouldn't make the user experince worse. If anything, it would allow them to avoid banner ads and make the experience better. That said, sounds like people aren't willing to "agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."
  - cube13 14y ago
    If someone's directly using my content and getting paid for it, I want a cut. It's really that simple.
    - daeken 14y ago
      If they're using your content to make money, you're being paid for it: you're getting access to the service.
      - onedev 14y ago
        Exactly. I can't believe that people just expect everything to come to them for free.
FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
Your statement doesn't hold true because actual peers call each other out on bad moves, and the failure (or lack of attempt) to find an actual good move. If we take your words as gospel, then we should be critical of them and we should take action. This is also because Instagram as a business is not a peer, does not follow advice, and absolutely needs to be burnt at the stake (and salivated over?) to realise it made a mistake.
001sky 14y ago
Remember that the people running this company are you peers. It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today. They're your friends, or just like your friends. Knock it off. -- If not in jest, this is rediculously naive. just FYI.
gcmartinelli 14y ago
Are you implying that <i>none</i> of your peers take questionable actions in business? If so, open your eyes.
fweez 14y ago
In the blog post announcing the changes (http://blog.instagram.com/post/38143346554/privacy-and-terms-of-service-changes-on-instagram http://blog.instagram.com/post/38143346554/privacy-and-terms...), they called out a "few key updates." The changes to the TOS were described as, "Our updated terms of service help protect you, and prevent spam and abuse as we grow." Our "friends" over there sure didn't go out of their way to call out an important change in the TOS. If it wasn't an attempt to sneak this by, it's indistinguishable from one.

by blhack 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

Just because they work in a similar area does not make them "friends". Besides it is good for an industry to keep it's peers in check. See also: Banking.

mburshteyn 14y ago

They may be a distinct brand, but Instagram is still owned by Facebook, the company openly attempting to shift society's views on privacy.

mnicole 14y ago

My personal friendships with people employed by Google, EA and Microsoft have no affiliation with how much I support those companies.

chmars 14y ago

It's a business, not a personal relationship. My peers and friends at least would never use my pictures to create ads and in any case, my relations to peer and friends are not based on comprehensive and one-sided ToS …

chadillac83 14y ago
By posting on HN you are agreeing to my peer-friendship ToS. As part of this ToS you hereby grant me unfettered access to your personal finances. edit: give me a $1
- chmars 14y ago
  Thumbs up for letting me go to bed in a very happy mood … :)
  - Vivtek 14y ago
    And at the low cost of only a dollar! I think grandparent's onto something big here.

guelo 14y ago

None of my friends communicate to millions of people via lawyers and PR departments.

23david 14y ago

I disagree. This was a carefully worded response. Notice "commit to you that we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion. As we review your feedback and stories in the press, we’re going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos." They expected this. It's a classic move from the Facebook playbook. Push out a far-reaching privacy policy or feature update. Release a message or press release saying that "we're listening". Make token changes and say "we've listened and made changes". And just in case people start to sue, vigorously lobby and donate to government officials to keep the regulatory heat off their backs. They are trying to get away with as much as they can. These stupid companies are going to be the reason why 10 years from now the Internet is going to be a morass of government regulation. Don't work for or support companies that act like this. Shame on them. Period. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a domain name or start an Internet company without taking a licensing exam.

nokcha 14y ago
>I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a domain name ... without taking a licensing exam. Who would impose such a requirement of licensure? Certainly not the government --- that would be a prior restraint on freedom of speech/press and therefore unconstitutional.
- pepr 14y ago
  Well, they would first impose it and then somebody sues them and it starts bouncing around various courts for the next 5 years. It would take some serious time until there would be a final ruling.

ryguytilidie 14y ago

Man, this is some absolutely insane over the top hyperbole. No one tried to cast this as a conspiracy, they simply called it what it is, a company monetizing by making the user experience worse. "Remember that the people running this company are you peers. It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today." I don't know whats craziest here. First, equating "burning them at the stake" to "deleting their accounts on that persons website" is absolute lunacy and I don't know how anyone could take your points seriously. Second, pretending that because these people look like my friends, they should get a free pass on changing their terms to better monetize user content is just lame, just because someone looks like me and is a millionaire doesn't make them immune to incredibly correct criticism.

marshray 14y ago
But most likely it wouldn't make the user experince worse. If anything, it would allow them to avoid banner ads and make the experience better. That said, sounds like people aren't willing to "agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."
- cube13 14y ago
  If someone's directly using my content and getting paid for it, I want a cut. It's really that simple.
  - daeken 14y ago
    If they're using your content to make money, you're being paid for it: you're getting access to the service.
    - onedev 14y ago
      Exactly. I can't believe that people just expect everything to come to them for free.

FuzzyDunlop 14y ago

Your statement doesn't hold true because actual peers call each other out on bad moves, and the failure (or lack of attempt) to find an actual good move. If we take your words as gospel, then we should be critical of them and we should take action. This is also because Instagram as a business is not a peer, does not follow advice, and absolutely needs to be burnt at the stake (and salivated over?) to realise it made a mistake.

001sky 14y ago

Remember that the people running this company are you peers. It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today. They're your friends, or just like your friends. Knock it off. -- If not in jest, this is rediculously naive. just FYI.

gcmartinelli 14y ago

Are you implying that <i>none</i> of your peers take questionable actions in business? If so, open your eyes.

fweez 14y ago

In the blog post announcing the changes (http://blog.instagram.com/post/38143346554/privacy-and-terms-of-service-changes-on-instagram http://blog.instagram.com/post/38143346554/privacy-and-terms...), they called out a "few key updates." The changes to the TOS were described as, "Our updated terms of service help protect you, and prevent spam and abuse as we grow." Our "friends" over there sure didn't go out of their way to call out an important change in the TOS. If it wasn't an attempt to sneak this by, it's indistinguishable from one.