This must be off topic but it's the first time I know Wil Wheaton is a real person. I thought he was a virtual figure in The Big Bang Theory...
Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy
131–140 of 140 posts
Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
A take on Instagram's new ad policy
I mean its not bad. I agree with your original statement that I too, don't know the majority of people who post stuff to HN in general, and I don't have issues with that. However, when someone submits a name in the title, I expect it to be a name that is relevant or something I would consider important. Names like Marc Andreesen or whoever makes a lot of sense. Wil Wheaton, not so much. Of course thats personal opinion.
That said, even with blog posts by Marc Andreesen, you don't see stuff like ": title". That sorta irks me. Personal problem, I know.
Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
> The problem is that the people willing to pay are exactly the people the advertisers most want to reach.
So charge more. Instagram et al are trying to make money, not serve advertisers. If privacy-conscious people are willing to pay more than advertisers that's great.
Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy
#134This must be off topic but it's the first time I know Wil Wheaton is a real person. I thought he was a virtual figure in The Big Bang Theory...
Stop whatever it is you are doing and watch Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy
#135if I'm in someone's address book, and they use an app that grants the developer full, unfettered access to their address book, I've now had my information given without my consultation or consent to a developer, and I never even knew it was happening.
== It used to be "pick your friends wisely"
But now, that's before the meaning of the term was of a different sort.
Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy
#136Earlier 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." 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…
I'm not sure. I do know that games like World of Warcraft would make you agree to the terms each time you had a patch or they changed. It seems like Instagram is doing what you are describing. I would definitely be interested in hearing a lawyer's opinion of it, since just changing it at any time without any specific action required on the part of the user seems to not be a valid contract in my eyes.
Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly like that. 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?
Are you? Citing one situation where they pulled back doesn't account for all of the endless updates they made against people's wishes, most recently that whole thing where they don't give users a choice anymore at all.
>Are you? Citing one situation where they pulled back doesn't account for all of the endless updates they made against people's wishes, most recently that whole thing where they don't give users a choice anymore at all.
What "users wishes"? Some people will always complain for anything.
It only matters when large volumes of users protest. Some guy in rural Montana not liking some Facebook policy doesn't mean FB will change it.
In this case the MAJORITY of the people are using Facebook as they did before, and have no problem with any changes.
Not the same case with Instagram, where the change has to do with the core (and basically only) feature of the service, uploading your photos.
Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
> The problem is that the people willing to pay are exactly the people the advertisers most want to reach. So charge more. Instagram et al are trying to make money, not serve advertisers. If privacy-conscious people are willing to pay more than advertisers that's great.
That would only make the problem worse.
The trouble is that the users (including the privacy conscious users) have to go where their friends are to interact with their friends. And the majority of users are not willing to pay money for more privacy, so the advertising-funded service gets the majority of the users, and the privacy conscious users can then either give up their privacy or lose the ability to interact with their not so privacy conscious friends. And they choose the first option in droves (or there just aren't enough privacy conscious people left), so there is no real market for the alternative.
I mean think about it: It's not like offering a paid service is rocket science. If there was money to be made there, why isn't anyone making a billion dollars offering it? Why aren't you?
Maybe it's an untapped market and no one else has had the vision to serve it. But this is kind of one of those money where your mouth is situations. If you think that market is lucrative enough to be worth chasing, do it. If not, well, apparently no one else does either, so here we are.
Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm not sure. I do know that games like World of Warcraft would make you agree to the terms each time you had a patch or they changed. It seems like Instagram is doing what you are describing. I would definitely be interested in hearing a lawyer's opinion of it, since just changing it at any time without any specific action required on the part of the user seems to not be a valid contract in my eyes.
I can't remember specifics, but I do remember reading either some corporate lawyer opinions or maybe a low court decision that this was valid (or maybe they had to notify, in some way, that the TOS had changed by email or with a flash message on login).
I have certainly read plenty of lawyer opinions that it's blatantly invalid to have "this contract can change at any time with no notice" clauses in a contract but I'm not sure what precedent is out there.
Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you? Citing one situation where they pulled back doesn't account for all of the endless updates they made against people's wishes, most recently that whole thing where they don't give users a choice anymore at all.
> Are you? Citing one situation where they pulled back doesn't account for all of the endless updates they made against people's wishes, most recently that whole thing where they don't give users a choice anymore at all. What "users wishes"? Some people will always complain for anything. It only matters when large volumes of users protest. Some guy in rural Montana not liking some Facebook policy doesn't mean FB will…
Design and privacy issues aside, how they're forcing businesses to pay to talk to their opted-in customers isn't core to the product?