Will you be cancelling your Instagram account?

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.

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.

it wasn't ignored. There have been several rounds of fussing about it.

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

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)

wonderful, region

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.

I'm on the verge of deleting mine because I cannot find a single usable instruction for this idiotic app.

I cannot even get into my profile because the icon people say to use, does not even exist on my IG interface.

I cannot post pictures or videos because I cannot find the options to do so.
The only way I have been able to message anyone is by replying to a message they already sent me.
When I launch Instagram it brings me to someone's video/picture but nothing else.
There is no search function for anything.
People talk about options that don't exist that i can find.

until there is a pictorial that has a fully detailed explanation to whatever icon is, where it is, how to access it, what it's used for, and is given an example use, then Instagram is nothing more than just another text messenger.

It's funny and interesting to me how people can claim all these options exist, yet there isn't a single instruction anywhere on the actual things that matter.