Instagram's official response

Post by jka » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 12:07 AM UTC

jka wrote: post #122

nathanb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some language in the post I found interesting: > The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. Note that he doesn't say "we won't use your photos as part of an advertisement", he merely says "the reason we're removing that language is b…

It's a science fiction idea I think, but something that would also fly, given their statements, would be to show photos of people who look like your friends (Facebook have the machine learning / pattern matching capability) in order to influence your decisions; someone who looks like a great crush you had, dining at a nearby restaurant, for example. This would neither necessarily fit into the classification of 'adver…

Post by shabble » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 12:07 AM UTC

dustingetz wrote: post #97

shabble wrote: post #74

There's something I can't quite put my finger on, that makes this response seem a bit forced and insincere. "Legal documents are easy to misinterpret. So I’d like to address specific concerns we’ve heard from everyone" My understanding is that legal documents are written precisely to be as hard to misinterpret as possible. They say exactly what they mean, and (subject to possible judicial interpretation) mean exactly…

> legal documents are written precisely to be as hard to misinterpret as possible legal documents reuse diction that has been ruled on and has court established precedent, which creates a bias towards diction which ended up in court in the first place. i read that in a HN comment somewhere, sorry, no citation.

Post by marshray » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 12:14 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #123

marshray wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your lawyer. A more likely explanation is that Legal didn't want to modify their very-expensively produced and widely-reviewed employment contract for some mere employee. And HR had you figured out as a troublemaker. :-)

You are probably correct. Although to my credit I made sure the language I offered had been previously litigated. One argument offered was that it was "too much trouble" to have a special employment agreement for me and a different one for everyone else. They really meant "too much more trouble" since there were at least 3 revisions of the agreement between the time I started and the time I left. Interesting to read…

Post by smackfu » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 12:18 AM UTC

rauljara wrote: post #117

I find this thread really fascinating. I have a hard time imagining a more better apology from Instagram. They accept responsibility, there isn't a trace of hostility towards any of the people who 'misinterpreted' their terms, they are upfront about needing to make money, and they communicate (or attempt to) that they were never in favor of any of those kind of downright villainous things it seemed like they were in…

Post by mmcnickle » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 12:21 AM UTC

shabble wrote: post #74

There's something I can't quite put my finger on, that makes this response seem a bit forced and insincere. "Legal documents are easy to misinterpret. So I’d like to address specific concerns we’ve heard from everyone" My understanding is that legal documents are written precisely to be as hard to misinterpret as possible. They say exactly what they mean, and (subject to possible judicial interpretation) mean exactly…