Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#111

Post by AnthonyMouse »

adrianbg wrote: post #104
casca wrote: post #3

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…

Why don't online businesses start offering privacy-conscious customers the option to pay for their services? This seems like a pretty obvious alternative to paying with privacy. I doubt they would even have to charge much for it to be profitable. Also: "axiom"? How about "fact"?

The problem is that the people willing to pay are exactly the people the advertisers most want to reach. The whole point of all this privacy invasion is to target the people with money who are willing to spend it. You take those people out of the pool and offering a free service no longer makes any sense, because nobody wants to pay to reach the people too cheap to buy stuff.

Which leaves you with a pay-only service, competing with a free-only service that consequently has ten times as many users (and therefore much stronger network effects), and the pay service goes out of business.

The true problem with all of this is that we're using services for things we should be using products for. You want to share photos with friends? We could do that in 1999 with AOL Instant Messenger. But now Facebook and Instagram have a better UX -- and it has nothing to do with whether they're services.

What we need is an open source P2P Instagram. No ads, no paying anybody anything, just photo sharing.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#112

Post by dgurney »

casca wrote: post #3

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…

Better way for Instagram to move forward: Change the app to $0.99 and avoid this advertising shitstorm-in-waiting.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#113

Post by zaphar »

drcube wrote: post #78
OafTobark wrote: post #8

I'll be honest. If it wasn't for Big Bang Theory, I'd have no clue who this guy was. Even with reference to Star Trek, I can't remember his character. Not sure why I'd care about his opinion on a semi-tech related topic (I know, not about me and my own opinion).

I only knew him from Stand By Me. He stopped being "that minor character from Star Trek" long ago. He's "internet famous" due to his blog and tech advocacy, with a boost from the occasional appearance on Big Bang Theory.

Also Eureka, Leverage, and some others that I can't recall right now. He's still a pretty active actor as well as author.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#114

Post by anonymouz »

shawn-butler wrote: post #103
tomjen3 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take a picture of me and upload it on instagram, I have not agreed to their tos and have not voluntarily given them anything. So no, this does not exactly compare with facebook.

You don't really have any rights to your image taken in a public place. Gets a little dicey when your image is used in a way that could be viewed as you endorsing something, like an ad or a service. For that I use a pretty blanket model release form, but it's a grey area. Unless you are rich and famous. They have their own set of rules.

Depends on the jurisdiction I suppose. In Austria, and I believe also Germany and maybe Switzerland, I do have a "right to my own image". That means I'm allowed to control the publication and use of an image if me, with some exceptions (i.e., if I'm not the main motive of the image but just a member of a crowd).

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#115

Post by OafTobark »

tjr wrote: post #38
OafTobark wrote: post #8

I'll be honest. If it wasn't for Big Bang Theory, I'd have no clue who this guy was. Even with reference to Star Trek, I can't remember his character. Not sure why I'd care about his opinion on a semi-tech related topic (I know, not about me and my own opinion).

I have no idea who most of the authors of essays submitted to HN are. Sometimes I come to know more about them by reading more of their work, but usually I don't know who they are before then. Same for the vast majority of folks posting comments. If we are interested only in the opinions of people we already know, how can a site like HN even exist?

That's not my point. It's the fact his name was emphasized in the title.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#117

Post by st0p »

dgurney wrote: post #112
casca wrote: post #3

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…

Better way for Instagram to move forward: Change the app to $0.99 and avoid this advertising shitstorm-in-waiting.

In the long run, this is not a viable business model. Servers might get cheaper every day, but you're still going to have to pay for them every month your service is up and running.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#118

Post by jpitz »

FootballMuse wrote: post #84
hellweaver666 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Redshirt (ensign): http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Wesley_Crusher,_2366.jp...

Despite his attire, Crusher was not a redshirt: http://gamerjargon2.wikispaces.com/red+shirt

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#119

Post by tjr »

OafTobark wrote: post #115
tjr wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea who most of the authors of essays submitted to HN are. Sometimes I come to know more about them by reading more of their work, but usually I don't know who they are before then. Same for the vast majority of folks posting comments. If we are interested only in the opinions of people we already know, how can a site like HN even exist?

That's not my point. It's the fact his name was emphasized in the title.

The original post had no title, per se. The most title-looking piece of text on it was in fact just "Wil Wheaton".

What do you think would have been a better title for submitting this piece to HN?

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#120

Post by jetti »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #108
jetti wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just unilaterally change a contract and expect it to be valid. My understanding of things like this is so that if things do change, the company can offer up a new TOS/contract which would supersede the previous.

The problem is that it's a service and they never promised they would keep providing it under the same terms forever. So when they change the terms, you can stop using it, but you can't (if the new terms are enforceable) demand to keep using it under the old terms, any more than you could demand they keep offering the service if they decided to shut it down. On the other hand, we've all now all got always-on always-c…

"The problem is that it's a service and they never promised they would keep providing it under the same terms forever. So when they change the terms, you can stop using it, but you can't (if the new terms are enforceable) demand to keep using it under the old terms, any more than you could demand they keep offering the service if they decided to shut it down."

Right, but terms need to be agreed upon by both parties. They can change the terms all they want but that doesn't mean that I have to abide by them if they don't ask for another agreement. The simple solution is to provide another agreement and make me agree again. If I don't agree, then the service is cancelled and we both go on our merry way.

Post reply on HN