13
   

Will you be cancelling your Instagram account?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2012 10:25 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:
I believe that Facebook/Instagram will slink back into its corner after a quick insincere apology and a revoking of the newly hated policy.


why would they? it's long-standing policy at FB and they now own Instagram.

the discussion I listened to last night talked about the other sites that offer similar filters and said that what FB (and Instagram) have that the other sites don't have is your friends. We're in effect 'held hostage' by our friends being at FB.

There have been dust-ups over the policy in the past, a few people decamped for Google+. Many came back quietly.

There are lots of things I won't use FB for, but it's a pretty savvy arrangement.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2012 10:42 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

tsarstepan wrote:
I believe that Facebook/Instagram will slink back into its corner after a quick insincere apology and a revoking of the newly hated policy.


why would they? it's long-standing policy at FB and they now own Instagram.

Big difference. The Facebook policy was ignored and tolerated if anybody knew it existed prior to this public counterreaction. I'm not that tech clueless. I just know when a company figures a minor reversal of policy can go a long way to appease an internet riot.

Instagram = sold for a billion dollars and now losing members and money from the public uproar. Is it the uproar based on irrationality and thusly not necessarily legitimate? To some degree. But still this round of bad publicity is going to be addressed. I'm not saying that Facebook will change its own policy. I'm just saying they'll pull back on the Instagram change.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2012 11:50 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

Big difference. The Facebook policy was ignored and tolerated if anybody knew it existed prior to this public counterreaction.


it wasn't ignored. There have been several rounds of fussing about it.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 12:19 pm
@boomerang,
A viable if crappy alternative to Instagram:
Holga DSLR Detachable Special Effect Lenses and Color Filter Turret for Canon
An alternative to using Instagram or buying an actual Holga camera, this product offers the worst of both worlds.
http://www.artinfo.com/photo-galleries/year-in-review-designs-echo-chamber-of-ironic-inventions?image=0
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 02:03 pm
Instagram furor triggers first class action lawsuit

By Dan Levine
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Facebook's Instagram photo sharing service has been hit with what appears to be the first civil lawsuit to result from changed service terms that prompted howls of protest last week.
In a proposed class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco federal court on Friday, a California Instagram user leveled breach of contract and other claims against the company.
"We believe this complaint is without merit and we will fight it vigorously," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in an e-mail.
Instagram, which allows people to add filters and effects to photos and share them easily on the Internet, was acquired by Facebook earlier this year for $715 million.
In announcing revised terms of service last week, Instagram spurred suspicions that it would sell user photos without compensation. It also announced a mandatory arbitration clause, forcing users to waive their rights to participate in a class action lawsuit except under very limited circumstances.
The current terms of service, in effect through mid-January, contain no such liability shield.
The backlash prompted Instagram founder and CEO Kevin Systrom to retreat partially a few days later, deleting language about displaying photos without compensation.
However, Instagram kept language that gave it the ability to place ads in conjunction with user content, and saying "that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such." It also kept the mandatory arbitration clause.
The lawsuit, filed by San Diego-based law firm Finkelstein & Krinsk, says customers who do not agree with Instagram's terms can cancel their profile but then forfeit rights to photos they had previously shared on the service.
"In short, Instagram declares that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law and if you don't like it, you can't stop us,'" the lawsuit says.
Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who had criticized Instagram, said he was pleased that the company rolled back some of the advertising terms and agreed to better explain their plans in the future.
However, he said the new terms no longer contain language which had explicitly promised that private photos would remain private. Facebook had engendered criticism in the past, Opsahl said, for changing settings so that the ability to keep some information private was no longer available.
"Hopefully, Instagram will learn from that experience and refrain from removing privacy settings," Opsahl said.
The civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Lucy Funes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Instagram Inc., 12-cv-6482.
(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Dan Grebler)
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  4  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 06:20 am

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/550761_429538933786821_1253826586_n.jpg
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 09:07 am
@Region Philbis,
wonderful, region
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2017 07:28 pm
@boomerang,
Not anytime soon.

I definitely clicked the button to cross post my gym picture to both Instagram and Facebook. Nice technology failure between 2 apps owned by the same company.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 08:20:25