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

121–130 of 140 posts

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#121

Post by shawn-butler »

anonymouz wrote: post #114
shawn-butler wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Germany and Austria have some of the most strict privacy laws in the world so they are a good example of the extreme case. In Germany, you do not control the use of the image, only its publication. That is I can take your photo in public and hang it on my own wall. Publication of public figures is pretty much universally allowed. Use of your image taken in public for data purposes (not published) remains controversial.

If I take your photograph and you cannot be identified in it, I can publish it without your permission, (say in a crowd or in front of a building as you note, etc)

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#122

Post by robryan »

ianstallings wrote: post #110
talaketu wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just made that up. I checked the dictionary.

Whatever. Keep complaining about a free service and see what it gets you. Might as well start moving your stuff out now because they won't change.

Sure they will, they live and die by users using the service. If enough users decided to start using one of the many competing services instead they will.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#123

Post by freshhawk »

jetti wrote: post #120
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Is that issue settled? Right now most entities we're talking about have a "TOS can be changed at any time" clause and seem to operate under the assumption that if they changed them and you keep using the site you have agreed.

Do you have to click an "I agree" for the new terms? Do they have to notify you or can they just change them and everyone has silently agreed to the changes?

I've seen all of the above and have never been clear on the current legal precedents on this.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#124

Post by baddox »

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…

There's a big difference between being surprised by behavior and simply not liking it. Being surprised by Instagram's intent to monetize is unreasonable, but it's fine to dislike it.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#125

Post by ianstallings »

robryan wrote: post #122
ianstallings wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever. Keep complaining about a free service and see what it gets you. Might as well start moving your stuff out now because they won't change.

Sure they will, they live and die by users using the service. If enough users decided to start using one of the many competing services instead they will.

Well then you win. Congrats?

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#126

Post by shanev »

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.

Facebook makes $36/user per year, on average. They are mostly about photos. Instagram knows this. $0.99 will be cutting it way too short.

I don't understand why companies like this don't just offer an ad-free pay option with a stronger privacy policy as an alternative to their free option and make everyone happy, except the total freeloaders who want free and their privacy protected. Seems to work fine for Flickr.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#127

Post by pokstad »

While tech related sites like hacker news get concerned about these matters, I'm pretty sure most Instagram users don't care about these privacy policies just like most Facebook user's haven't cared. They get to use a fun cool product for free and everything else happens behind the scenes (out of sight out of mind).

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#128

Post by spitfire »

jval wrote: post #26
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…

> Axiom 3: Company has no other visible means of income This is not true. There are plenty of other ways for social sites to make money. If Twitter is doing billions off promoted Tweets, then surely a company like Facebook which has even more data on you can make a similar amount selling standard targeted advertising. What we are seeing here is crossing the line. The worst thing is, this data was acquired under compl…

Twitter is making billions? I didn't know they had managed to even top tens of millions.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#129

Post by danboarder »

The direction Instagram is going is similar to what Facebook does already with what I'll call "endorsement advertising".

I've noticed ads where it says something like "your friend Dave likes Verizon", with a clear link to an ad. I then ask Dave if he recently "Liked" verizon and he says "No, but maybe a year ago or something for a contest". So they are selling our likes as endorsements to brands already.

Instagram wants to do this with photos, I expect. A photo of you driving a Prius might link to a Toyota brand page after you follow the Toyota instagram profile, for example.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#130

Post by clarky07 »

shanev wrote: post #126
dgurney wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Facebook makes $36/user per year, on average. They are mostly about photos. Instagram knows this. $0.99 will be cutting it way too short. I don't understand why companies like this don't just offer an ad-free pay option with a stronger privacy policy as an alternative to their free option and make everyone happy, except the total freeloaders who want free and their privacy protected. Seems to work fine for Flickr.

Can I have a link for that stat? If I recall they are around 1 billion users. I'm quite certain they didn't make 36 billion last year...

Actual numbers - 4.64B revenue. 400M profit. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=FB

Post reply on HN