If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Instagram backpedals, gives their version of 'sorry you were offended by what I said': "Our mistake that this language is confusing"   (reuters.com) divider line 12
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

7902 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2012 at 8:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-18 08:26:29 PM  
6 votes:
Because God knows all those sepia toned photos of your breakfast were so valuable.
2012-12-18 09:16:26 PM  
5 votes:
media-cache0.pinterest.com
2012-12-18 08:33:35 PM  
4 votes:
Instagram: Where pornstars go to post photos of their pets.
2012-12-18 08:26:48 PM  
3 votes:
I'm sure that this was just one big misunderstanding. You should definitely come back to Instagram. Especially you, 18 year old girls, who take naughty pictures of yourselves, and then send them to people.


/ we promise not to look at them or sell them
2012-12-18 09:04:47 PM  
2 votes:
Instagram: "Sorry that we used such vague language."
Translation: "We didn't think anyone ever read this shiat."
2012-12-19 12:55:13 AM  
1 votes:

sugardave: gweilo8888: Losing one in 29 of ALL of your customers in a single quarter (largely, in a single month) is not a huge exodus?

What do they have to do, lose every single customer in one go, and a few hundred million customers they didn't even have?

You're funny.

That equates to a WHOPPING 3.44% of their customers.



If you have continual quarters of customer growth and you backtrack and LOSE customers that is a back quarter to Wall Street and will reduce the overall value of your company. Not sure how anyone who knows anything about financial projection/analysis is denying this.
But I may have answered my own question.
2012-12-18 10:03:34 PM  
1 votes:

gweilo8888: rocky_howard: gweilo8888: Actually, no. Compare the old TOU side by side with the new one. The verbiage about ads being placed next to content is significantly changed. However, as I said, that's not the real bad bit. The real bad bit is the words "transferable, sub-licensable", plus the fact they contractually prevent users from suing either as a class action or individually.

[d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net image 600x223]

Um, no. The new terms are SIGNIFICANTLY worse. "Use" already means "modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and translate", and "transferable, sub-licensable" plus non-limited means they can not only distribute part or all of your work, but it also means that they can sell it to anybody else to do the very same.

Essentially, the new terms mean they can do *everything* they could under the old terms, but they can now also give your content to anybody else they want to and let the unknown third party do any of those things too.

And as for the second quote, there is a BIG difference between "may place advertising ... on, about, or in conjunction with your content", and "may display your username, likeness, and actions you take ... in conjunction with paid or sponsored content". But yes, as I have repeatedly said, the whole advertising thing is a tiny red herring. The huge deal is the words "transferable, sub-licensable" right to your photos, along with the fact that they do not explicitly state that those rights end when your photos or account are deleted.

I also strongly question the legality of stating that a minor can provide implied consent on behalf of their legal guardian simply by accessing a website. If a minor could provide implied consent of their own guardian, surely that would defeat the purpose of a guardian existing?



www.the-tshirts.com

It's as if this man is their lawyer.
2012-12-18 09:49:01 PM  
1 votes:

rocky_howard: gweilo8888: Actually, no. Compare the old TOU side by side with the new one. The verbiage about ads being placed next to content is significantly changed. However, as I said, that's not the real bad bit. The real bad bit is the words "transferable, sub-licensable", plus the fact they contractually prevent users from suing either as a class action or individually.

[d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net image 600x223]


Um, no. The new terms are SIGNIFICANTLY worse. "Use" already means "modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and translate", and "transferable, sub-licensable" plus non-limited means they can not only distribute part or all of your work, but it also means that they can sell it to anybody else to do the very same.

Essentially, the new terms mean they can do *everything* they could under the old terms, but they can now also give your content to anybody else they want to and let the unknown third party do any of those things too.

And as for the second quote, there is a BIG difference between "may place advertising ... on, about, or in conjunction with your content", and "may display your username, likeness, and actions you take ... in conjunction with paid or sponsored content". But yes, as I have repeatedly said, the whole advertising thing is a tiny red herring. The huge deal is the words "transferable, sub-licensable" right to your photos, along with the fact that they do not explicitly state that those rights end when your photos or account are deleted.

I also strongly question the legality of stating that a minor can provide implied consent on behalf of their legal guardian simply by accessing a website. If a minor could provide implied consent of their own guardian, surely that would defeat the purpose of a guardian existing?
2012-12-18 09:48:31 PM  
1 votes:

revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

 
 
Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false
2012-12-18 09:23:08 PM  
1 votes:

Wardrobe_Malfunction: Instagram is owned by Facebook now. Mark Zuckerburg would never, ever exploit people in order to build his product, right??


If he could actually build his product out of the freshly-flayed flesh of his users, I wouldn't be surprised to see him do it.
2012-12-18 09:06:47 PM  
1 votes:
I had to laugh at all my Facebook friends today who posted about this today. They seem confused on the whole 'What Facebook is' thing. They actually seemed to think this was news or somehow different than what Facebook already does.

Just post lots of pictures of rounded corners, compelling design, people swiping touchscreens and leaked source code. If you do that, Facebook will then own it (right?) and then Facebook, Apple and possibly Microsoft can sue each other into irrelevancy.

Well, one can have fantasies anyways.
2012-12-18 08:31:03 PM  
1 votes:
hahahahahahahahahahahaha. 
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report