81–90 of 140 posts
Does paying for a service help keep my data private? For example, if I'm a paid user at Linkedin - does that mean they would treat my data differently than that of the free users?
While he's very much on the right track here, his mention of celebrities muddles the point somewhat. In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a celebrity or not. This is why photographers who think their photos might be used commercially should get model releases from any identifiable persons in their photos. The…
However Will's point is that Instagram's new agreement may compromise a user's ability to manage their personal brand, because their photos are no longer their own. If I'm Will Wheaton and I post a photo of myself having a good time at Disney Land, I don't want Disney Land taking that photo and using it in their ads. Since it's a photo of myself the photo release issue isn't the problem, since I've forfeited that right to sue by agreeing to Instagram's new agreement.
The celebrity angle is interesting here. I eventually killed a little product because it was too hard to legally acquire face shots of celebrities and it just didn't have enough zing without pictures by names. If enough celebrities used Instagram, and Instagram could figure out their accounts, they could open autopaparazzi.com.
Presumably it will be in violation of Instagram's TOS to post the kind of pic that he talks about. (See Rights 4.(ii) )
But as he alludes to, it should make it interesting when someone does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure this is posted because it's a fairly-well-known blogger (which Wil is, now) talking about the Instagram TOS topic and not just because it's some redshirt from Star Trek.
Wil was never a redshirt. He was the son of the ships doctor who (if I remember rightly) became the ships ensign, joined Star-Fleet and later went off to explore other planes of existence with an alien known as "The Traveller".
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Wesley_Crusher,_2366.jp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No you don't. You need to join g+ only to reply to the post, but didn't I need to join HN to reply to your post?
Were you logged into a google account? I was logged in and got the above screen. I was not trying to reply--kind of hard to when you can't even read the post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, this backlash from users is exactly what's happening. You can't simultaneously try to dissuade the backlash from happening and depend on it to prevent the undesirable events from taking place. No, but I CAN and AM expecting people participating in the backlash: a) NOT to behave like it's the first time they are seeing this b) NOT to behave like this move was intended as perceived, and c) NOT to behave like thi…
Question: if people behaved like this would be reverted pronto, would it still be reverted?
Instagram would have closed shop the very first day it actually ATTEMPTED to sell a user photo without his permission.
Plus, I addressed this very question in my reply already. Not to mention that my first comment have several ADDITIONAL reasons why this is not actually happening.
> So Instagram is now going to use photos taken by its users in advertising, and they may or may not disclose to viewers when the advertising is happening. No, they are NOT going to do that. It's 2012. Why are people --and especially someone like Wheaton-- behaving like it's 1994 and they are learning this "web" thing for the first time? I've seen the same bloody story play up 10 or 20 times. They made a BS change on…
Is it because we as geeks we haven't seen the very same thing play out several times already?
Or because people in HN genuinely believe that Instagram really INTENDED to sell people's photos without their permission or money?
HN has really hit rock bottom...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, this backlash from users is exactly what's happening. You can't simultaneously try to dissuade the backlash from happening and depend on it to prevent the undesirable events from taking place. No, but I CAN and AM expecting people participating in the backlash: a) NOT to behave like it's the first time they are seeing this b) NOT to behave like this move was intended as perceived, and c) NOT to behave like thi…
> c) NOT to behave like this wont be reverted pronto. Like Facebook has been stifled by users' opinions before.
CNN and other media outlets report that Facebook reverted their TOS update and went back to using the previous one. 'The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/18/1310239/facebook-rev...
New to the interwebs?
Axiom 1: Company is collecting and storing personal data that you voluntarily provide Axiom 2: Company does not charge you for this service Axiom 3: Company has no other visible means of income Axiom 4: Company has non-trivial operating expenses Given that this covers a huge amount of "our digital life", there are a few possible solutions: - Keep getting services without paying money but paying with privacy - Identif…
It's not surprising people are upset when the mass trial period ends and there are no competitors left to move to.
Does paying for a service help keep my data private? For example, if I'm a paid user at Linkedin - does that mean they would treat my data differently than that of the free users?
No. It used to be that you didn't get ads on cable TV because you already paid for the channels. Then the ads came anyway. Just because you pay for an internet service doesn't mean you avoided the privacy concerns that plague free services. At best you just postponed them.
