5 ms·

This is the first time XKCD has struck me as being ignorant... I'm assuming that it's for the sake of the joke. People have a right to be annoyed by this, in f

by smosher 14y ago

This is the first time XKCD has struck me as being ignorant... I'm assuming that it's for the sake of the joke. People have a right to be annoyed by this, in fact I wish it was more common. Rights to our own creations should not be taken so lightly. So I support the sentiments of boycotters, even though Facebook is well within their rights to make this change. I don't support the attitude that it's unjust, but overreaction is better than none.

dfxm12 14y ago
I think the punchline here is that it is a Sisyphean task to find (or expect) a "free" web service that doesn't already profit from user submitted content. I don't think it is making light of people who are annoyed/boycotting... It is making light of the line of thought that companies we give our data to (for free) are ever going to use it for what we want them to, and not what they want to (make money). This comic is saying that if we care about the rights to our work, don't give the work to anyone.
- 001sky 14y ago
  This comic is saying that if we care about the rights to our work, don't give the work to anyone Publication is a method of promulgating copyright. When you publish your ideas/images online one you are not "giving" your image rights to instagram (or to any publisher). In the same way, when you make a telephone call, you are not giving your data to the police and 3rd parties (or the phone company) to listen to. Consumers and producers are both better off with "dumb pipes", than this alternative reality. Businesses are continually trying to exploit their position, and are not beyond unethical/shady/opportunistic behaviour. This incident is a sort of 'Exhibit A'.
  - sethist 14y ago
    Except Instagram isn't and was never designed to be a pipe. HTTP and email are the dumb pipes you are looking for in this situation.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Don't disagree. But rather than being 'dumb' they are being 'too clever, by half'. And that is the problem. They are grooming their users to be abused, building trust to be exploited. Like pedophiles.
      - dfxm12 14y ago
        They are grooming their users to be abused, building trust to be exploited. I believe the comic also asks the question: How many times are we going to fall for this?
        001sky 14y ago
        And in the case of the paedophile, there is a reason its illegal (in many jurisdictions).
  - raintrees 14y ago
    "when you make a telephone call, you are not giving your data to the police and 3rd parties (or the phone company) to listen to" There is contention about whether this is the case, now that many eschew land lines: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57493811-83/federal-court-oks-warrantless-cell-phone-tracking-by-police/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57493811-83/federal-court-o...
sanderjd 14y ago
>> Rights to our own creations should not be taken so lightly. Just like possession of our belongings should not be taken lightly, which is why nobody would actually put all their stuff in Chad's garage. People have already taken the rights to their creations lightly by posting them on a free service.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Okay so, let's accept for a moment that people who put stuff in Chad's garage were being dumb. How does that, in any way, justify Chad selling your stuff? Whether or not people were smart trusting Instagram in the first place is an entirely separate issue from Instagram's new TOS.
  - frobozz 14y ago
    It doesn't, but that's not the punchline. The punchline is the reaction. People are almost enraged enough to boycott instagram over this.
    - RyanZAG 14y ago
      They should be boycotting instagram after this (or actually, before this). I know full well that any photo I upload to facebook/instagram/etc is no longer mine and the whole world can see it. So I definitely don't store my stuff there, it would be insane.
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    > How does that, in any way, justify Chad selling your stuff? You aren't paying Chad to store your stuff, but Chad incurs costs for doing so; Chad has every right to sell some of it to cover his storage costs or just toss it all out on the street. Freeloaders don't have "rights".
    - narcissus 14y ago
      Could he not have asked you to maybe pay something, instead? I mean, it's not "everything's free" and "we're selling your stuff" are the only two options here...
furyofantares 14y ago
I think you are reading Chad's Garage as a direct analogy to Instagram, which I don't think was the intention. I think it's an over-the-top exaggeration of Instagram. The joke is about the user who expresses outrage over the free service doing something against the users' interests, but isn't even quite willing to stop using it.
- smosher 14y ago
  The title given is "Instagram", not "Chad's Garage". I got the joke. I would find it funnier if that something were something other than what happened in this instance. It's not sour grapes either, I've never been an Instagram user.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  I think the big problem is that social sites create value with a network effect (metcalfe's law). The only reason they are "free" is to drive the network to a size where it can be monetized.
smspence 14y ago
The "creations" that people are posting are low-res cellphone pics of food and random scenery with a faux-retro filter added. Why so serious?
- gbog 14y ago
  Let me guess: some people cherish their memories. I have some phone pics I cherish, like my kids talking to this Tibetan dog. They are on a drive at home with a backup, but...
- summerdown2 14y ago
  From http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/biography http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/biography > Over a six-month period in 2011, Brown documented the face of battle in Libya using a camera phone, challenging the standard script for war reportage. For example: http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/the-libyan-revolution/vv163 http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/the-libyan-revolution/vv163 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/nov/16/mobile-photography-richard-gray http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/nov/16/mobile-ph... Just because the device is basic, doesn't make mobile phone photography worthless.
  - smspence 14y ago
    And... ? Can this person no longer post photos to Instagram now? What has Instagram done to this person that is so terrible?
    - summerdown2 14y ago
      I was replying to your comment here: > The "creations" that people are posting are low-res cellphone pics of food and random scenery with a faux-retro filter added. Why so serious? ... I was just pointing out that some photos are art, not just "creations".
- lord_nikon 14y ago
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/12/19/instagram-boycott-now-includes-national-geographic-and-anonymous/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/12/19/instagram-... Looks like the National Geographic is doing more with Instagram than just some filters and bad food photography.

by smosher 14y ago

dfxm12 14y ago

I think the punchline here is that it is a Sisyphean task to find (or expect) a "free" web service that doesn't already profit from user submitted content. I don't think it is making light of people who are annoyed/boycotting... It is making light of the line of thought that companies we give our data to (for free) are ever going to use it for what we want them to, and not what they want to (make money). This comic is saying that if we care about the rights to our work, don't give the work to anyone.

001sky 14y ago
This comic is saying that if we care about the rights to our work, don't give the work to anyone Publication is a method of promulgating copyright. When you publish your ideas/images online one you are not "giving" your image rights to instagram (or to any publisher). In the same way, when you make a telephone call, you are not giving your data to the police and 3rd parties (or the phone company) to listen to. Consumers and producers are both better off with "dumb pipes", than this alternative reality. Businesses are continually trying to exploit their position, and are not beyond unethical/shady/opportunistic behaviour. This incident is a sort of 'Exhibit A'.
- sethist 14y ago
  Except Instagram isn't and was never designed to be a pipe. HTTP and email are the dumb pipes you are looking for in this situation.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Don't disagree. But rather than being 'dumb' they are being 'too clever, by half'. And that is the problem. They are grooming their users to be abused, building trust to be exploited. Like pedophiles.
    - dfxm12 14y ago
      They are grooming their users to be abused, building trust to be exploited. I believe the comic also asks the question: How many times are we going to fall for this?
      - 001sky 14y ago
        And in the case of the paedophile, there is a reason its illegal (in many jurisdictions).
- raintrees 14y ago
  "when you make a telephone call, you are not giving your data to the police and 3rd parties (or the phone company) to listen to" There is contention about whether this is the case, now that many eschew land lines: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57493811-83/federal-court-oks-warrantless-cell-phone-tracking-by-police/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57493811-83/federal-court-o...

sanderjd 14y ago

>> Rights to our own creations should not be taken so lightly. Just like possession of our belongings should not be taken lightly, which is why nobody would actually put all their stuff in Chad's garage. People have already taken the rights to their creations lightly by posting them on a free service.

potatolicious 14y ago
Okay so, let's accept for a moment that people who put stuff in Chad's garage were being dumb. How does that, in any way, justify Chad selling your stuff? Whether or not people were smart trusting Instagram in the first place is an entirely separate issue from Instagram's new TOS.
- frobozz 14y ago
  It doesn't, but that's not the punchline. The punchline is the reaction. People are almost enraged enough to boycott instagram over this.
  - RyanZAG 14y ago
    They should be boycotting instagram after this (or actually, before this). I know full well that any photo I upload to facebook/instagram/etc is no longer mine and the whole world can see it. So I definitely don't store my stuff there, it would be insane.
- gnaritas 14y ago
  > How does that, in any way, justify Chad selling your stuff? You aren't paying Chad to store your stuff, but Chad incurs costs for doing so; Chad has every right to sell some of it to cover his storage costs or just toss it all out on the street. Freeloaders don't have "rights".
  - narcissus 14y ago
    Could he not have asked you to maybe pay something, instead? I mean, it's not "everything's free" and "we're selling your stuff" are the only two options here...

furyofantares 14y ago

I think you are reading Chad's Garage as a direct analogy to Instagram, which I don't think was the intention. I think it's an over-the-top exaggeration of Instagram. The joke is about the user who expresses outrage over the free service doing something against the users' interests, but isn't even quite willing to stop using it.

smosher 14y ago
The title given is "Instagram", not "Chad's Garage". I got the joke. I would find it funnier if that something were something other than what happened in this instance. It's not sour grapes either, I've never been an Instagram user.
darkarmani 14y ago
I think the big problem is that social sites create value with a network effect (metcalfe's law). The only reason they are "free" is to drive the network to a size where it can be monetized.

smspence 14y ago

The "creations" that people are posting are low-res cellphone pics of food and random scenery with a faux-retro filter added. Why so serious?

gbog 14y ago
Let me guess: some people cherish their memories. I have some phone pics I cherish, like my kids talking to this Tibetan dog. They are on a drive at home with a backup, but...
summerdown2 14y ago
From http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/biography http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/biography > Over a six-month period in 2011, Brown documented the face of battle in Libya using a camera phone, challenging the standard script for war reportage. For example: http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/the-libyan-revolution/vv163 http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/the-libyan-revolution/vv163 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/nov/16/mobile-photography-richard-gray http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/nov/16/mobile-ph... Just because the device is basic, doesn't make mobile phone photography worthless.
- smspence 14y ago
  And... ? Can this person no longer post photos to Instagram now? What has Instagram done to this person that is so terrible?
  - summerdown2 14y ago
    I was replying to your comment here: > The "creations" that people are posting are low-res cellphone pics of food and random scenery with a faux-retro filter added. Why so serious? ... I was just pointing out that some photos are art, not just "creations".
lord_nikon 14y ago
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/12/19/instagram-boycott-now-includes-national-geographic-and-anonymous/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/12/19/instagram-... Looks like the National Geographic is doing more with Instagram than just some filters and bad food photography.