3 ms·

I don't personally use Instagram, but I do use other services that share a similar monetization structure. (Google, et al.) Although the entitlement mentality

by adrianm 14y ago

I don't personally use Instagram, but I do use other services that share a similar monetization structure. (Google, et al.) Although the entitlement mentality shown by users is certainly an overreaction, primarily by users who don't understand the corporate structure that they've bought into by their use of the services, I can't say that xkcd comic you quoted in support of your position is valid. These companies turn the data we the users produce from our individual actions and queries into a marketable asset that they can (if everything goes according to plan) profit from. This means that their service is not offered altruistically or even unwillingly; their persistant existence relies on our using their services. I don't want to come off like a privacy nut, because first of all it would be hypocritical given that I am a user of Google and Gmail, but something just doesn't smell right to me about this situation we have all gotten ourselves into by using these products.

jacquesm 14y ago
> This means that their service is not offered altruistically or even unwillingly; their persistant existence relies on our using their services. And that the service that you sign up for is probably not the service that you'll see a few years down the line when the pressure to monetize is up. Until then you shouldn't be asking if there is a catch, but what the catch will be.
lucian303 14y ago
To paraphrase someone wiser than me: "If you're not paying for it, you're not the customer, you're the product." Period.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  Oh for god's sake, just STOP with this trite bit of idiocy. Every time a service that relies on users IP to do business does something users dislike, some brainless moron repeats this goddamn cliche as though it were an actual contribution to the conversation. What you need to understand is this: IP has real value. Period. So when a company secures limited use of yours in return for a specific service under a specific set of terms, they have no business retroactively changing those terms, any more than they would in the case of a cash transaction. And stating that the terms can be changed simply means the company is free to evolve the service, and renegotiate accordingly. It doesn't mean that they can secure your agreement under one set of terms, change everything, and retain unbroken consent. Every contract is based on an exchange of value. Both parties provide something, and both parties take something away. While it's fair to classify as "customers" those who pay cash, it's a mistake to think that other parties to the transaction are less than fully protected by the laws that govern exchange in general.
  - lucian303 14y ago
    That's not how most TOS are written and since you're not paying for the service (not that that would make a difference in reality) you're not going to get the protection you think you're entitled to. That's not how the law works in reality.

by adrianm 14y ago

jacquesm 14y ago

> This means that their service is not offered altruistically or even unwillingly; their persistant existence relies on our using their services. And that the service that you sign up for is probably not the service that you'll see a few years down the line when the pressure to monetize is up. Until then you shouldn't be asking if there is a catch, but what the catch will be.

lucian303 14y ago

To paraphrase someone wiser than me: "If you're not paying for it, you're not the customer, you're the product." Period.

alexqgb 14y ago
Oh for god's sake, just STOP with this trite bit of idiocy. Every time a service that relies on users IP to do business does something users dislike, some brainless moron repeats this goddamn cliche as though it were an actual contribution to the conversation. What you need to understand is this: IP has real value. Period. So when a company secures limited use of yours in return for a specific service under a specific set of terms, they have no business retroactively changing those terms, any more than they would in the case of a cash transaction. And stating that the terms can be changed simply means the company is free to evolve the service, and renegotiate accordingly. It doesn't mean that they can secure your agreement under one set of terms, change everything, and retain unbroken consent. Every contract is based on an exchange of value. Both parties provide something, and both parties take something away. While it's fair to classify as "customers" those who pay cash, it's a mistake to think that other parties to the transaction are less than fully protected by the laws that govern exchange in general.
- lucian303 14y ago
  That's not how most TOS are written and since you're not paying for the service (not that that would make a difference in reality) you're not going to get the protection you think you're entitled to. That's not how the law works in reality.