5 ms·

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.
- smspence 14y ago
  I still do not understand the outrage over this. How would the new TOS actually negatively affect the users? What would ACTUALLY happen to them that is so horrible? Here is a hypothetical: 1. I post a photo of a dinner table at a restaurant that shows some fizzy drinks in glasses. 2. SodaStream wants to post an ad on Instagram, and my photo gets selected kinda like a stock-photo would be selected because it is drink/food related, and it gets shown somewhere on Instagram's website. Result: my life is not negatively impacted by this in any way, and the world continues turning. My reaction: If ever saw this happening, my reaction would be "Whoa cool, that's a picture I took! And now tons of people are seeing it, instead of just the 5 or 6 people that normally see my Instagram photos. I'm internet famous, haha!" The blogo-sphere's reaction: "RAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEE!!!!!!!!!" I ask: "Seriously, what is the big deal here?" They respond: "Just shut up, and RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!!!"
  - summerdown2 14y ago
    Not everyone has the same reaction about everything. For some people, its not cool. And, being unable to buy a controlling stock option in the company to make it obey their wishes, they used the lever of public dissent. Looks like it worked, too.
  - PeterisP 14y ago
    National Geographic is building their whole business on their photos. It may be quite reasonable that the previous ToS was compatible with their business, and the new ones, which allow Instagram to get paid for NatGeo photos instead of NatGeo itself, aren't acceptible anymore. The whole point is not about the majority of dinnertable photos - for those content producers who make quality photos that everybody (not just your friends) want to look at, the content rights are an important issue. And these few users do represent a lot of value, and their leaving would hurt both Instagram and the content consumers.
gwern 14y ago
"I don't like some of Instagram submissions, therefore it is all worthless and not worth getting upset over."
- smspence 14y ago
  That's not what I am saying at all. Maybe I am just doing a poor job of articulating my point. All I am asking is for someone to explain to my WHY this is worth getting upset over? Here is one of my other responses on the matter, copy-pasted so hopefully you can explain to me why this is a big deal: [ start copy-paste ] I still do not understand the outrage over this. How would the new TOS actually negatively affect the users? What would ACTUALLY happen to them that is so horrible? Here is a hypothetical: 1. I post a photo of a dinner table at a restaurant that shows some fizzy drinks in glasses. 2. SodaStream wants to post an ad on Instagram, and my photo gets selected kinda like a stock-photo would be selected because it is drink/food related, and it gets shown somewhere on Instagram's website. Result: my life is not negatively impacted by this in any way, and the world continues turning. My reaction: If ever saw this happening, my reaction would be "Whoa cool, that's a picture I took! And now tons of people are seeing it, instead of just the 5 or 6 people that normally see my Instagram photos. I'm internet famous, haha!" The blogo-sphere's reaction: "RAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEE!!!!!!!!!" I ask: "Seriously, what is the big deal here?" They respond: "Just shut up, and RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!!!" [ end copy-paste ]

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.

smspence 14y ago
I still do not understand the outrage over this. How would the new TOS actually negatively affect the users? What would ACTUALLY happen to them that is so horrible? Here is a hypothetical: 1. I post a photo of a dinner table at a restaurant that shows some fizzy drinks in glasses. 2. SodaStream wants to post an ad on Instagram, and my photo gets selected kinda like a stock-photo would be selected because it is drink/food related, and it gets shown somewhere on Instagram's website. Result: my life is not negatively impacted by this in any way, and the world continues turning. My reaction: If ever saw this happening, my reaction would be "Whoa cool, that's a picture I took! And now tons of people are seeing it, instead of just the 5 or 6 people that normally see my Instagram photos. I'm internet famous, haha!" The blogo-sphere's reaction: "RAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEE!!!!!!!!!" I ask: "Seriously, what is the big deal here?" They respond: "Just shut up, and RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!!!"
- summerdown2 14y ago
  Not everyone has the same reaction about everything. For some people, its not cool. And, being unable to buy a controlling stock option in the company to make it obey their wishes, they used the lever of public dissent. Looks like it worked, too.
- PeterisP 14y ago
  National Geographic is building their whole business on their photos. It may be quite reasonable that the previous ToS was compatible with their business, and the new ones, which allow Instagram to get paid for NatGeo photos instead of NatGeo itself, aren't acceptible anymore. The whole point is not about the majority of dinnertable photos - for those content producers who make quality photos that everybody (not just your friends) want to look at, the content rights are an important issue. And these few users do represent a lot of value, and their leaving would hurt both Instagram and the content consumers.

gwern 14y ago

"I don't like some of Instagram submissions, therefore it is all worthless and not worth getting upset over."

smspence 14y ago
That's not what I am saying at all. Maybe I am just doing a poor job of articulating my point. All I am asking is for someone to explain to my WHY this is worth getting upset over? Here is one of my other responses on the matter, copy-pasted so hopefully you can explain to me why this is a big deal: [ start copy-paste ] I still do not understand the outrage over this. How would the new TOS actually negatively affect the users? What would ACTUALLY happen to them that is so horrible? Here is a hypothetical: 1. I post a photo of a dinner table at a restaurant that shows some fizzy drinks in glasses. 2. SodaStream wants to post an ad on Instagram, and my photo gets selected kinda like a stock-photo would be selected because it is drink/food related, and it gets shown somewhere on Instagram's website. Result: my life is not negatively impacted by this in any way, and the world continues turning. My reaction: If ever saw this happening, my reaction would be "Whoa cool, that's a picture I took! And now tons of people are seeing it, instead of just the 5 or 6 people that normally see my Instagram photos. I'm internet famous, haha!" The blogo-sphere's reaction: "RAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEE!!!!!!!!!" I ask: "Seriously, what is the big deal here?" They respond: "Just shut up, and RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!!!" [ end copy-paste ]