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

Instagram's official response

blog.instagram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 258 posts

Re: Instagram's official response

#221

Post by pfortuny »

smegel wrote: post #215
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…

"To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos." Weasel words. What's so hard about saying "we wont sell your photos, promise, fingers crossed", unless they actually do want to keep that option open. I imagine a rock solid guarantee that users photos wont be used without their consent would go a very long way in appeasing people. "If your internal heuristics say..." No, when the company TOS say they will a…

It is not our intention. As if that mattered when signing a contract.

Re: Instagram's official response

#222

Post by bborud »

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…

I think it should be hard to fix with mere words when trust is broken either intentionally or by carelessness.

Re: Instagram's official response

#223

Post by ProblemFactory »

Karunamon wrote: post #216
onedev wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only the law worked that way. Next time read the ToS of every service you use, and feel free to get angry at every single one of them.

You mean how the ToS of Flickr, Picasa, etc don't include such terms?

Picasa Terms of Service are much more limited.

They ask for a license to store, display and publish your content, but this is explicitly limited to the use of operating the service. They need that license so that some user does not sue them for copyright infringement after uploading their own pictures and clicking "share".

Instagram/Facebook take a much broader license, which includes sub-licensing rights to third parties, including for profit and unrelated to the operation of Instagram itself.

Re: Instagram's official response

#224

Post by lsc »

onedev wrote: post #183
Deestan wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's very simple: If they truly believed they would never stoop to those "downright villainous things", they would not need to allow for them in the TOS. Putting the promise in the actual TOS is much more believable than putting it in a blog post.

If only the law worked that way. Next time read the ToS of every service you use, and feel free to get angry at every single one of them.

>Next time read the ToS of every service you use, and feel free to get angry at every single one of them.

Note, getting angry? that is what changes this sort of thing.

Seriously, setting up a ToS is a pain in the ass. If someone that understands the business and the customer isn't involved, if you throw it over the fence to the lawyers, and you don't read it like a user would, this is what it ends up looking like. Hammering out a good ToS is really hard, and it requires effort of someone that cares about the reputation of the company, /and/ hasn't drank so much company kool-aide that they understand that users don't always assume good faith.

These people are harder to find than lawyers. So yeah, setting up a good ToS is hard.

If customers just 'click through' and don't care what the ToS says? guess what businesses are going to do? we are going to throw it over the fence to the lawyers, who are going to write something like this, if they think the VC is their client.

Getting angry is really important, because it's the only way to convince companies to put the effort in to writing a good ToS.

Re: Instagram's official response

#225

Post by porker »

cbs wrote: post #198
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…

>I have a hard time imagining a more better apology from Instagram. I don't. This message from on high wasn't particularly bad for a startup, but there are plenty of internet "lifestyle businesses" that can communicate with their user base much much better. The guys who accidentally turn their hobby projects into a small, sustainable business for themselves talk to their userbase with a level of candidness that you'l…

> but there are plenty of internet "lifestyle businesses" that can communicate with their user base much much better.

Like..?

> The guys who accidentally turn their hobby projects into a small, sustainable business for themselves talk to their userbase with a level of candidness that you'll never see from startup guys

I'd really like to know which, so I can learn from them.

Re: Instagram's official response

#226

Post by davidw »

saraid216 wrote: post #149
feralmoan wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentiment reads 'Yeah yeah, we hear you, here's some token feel goods but we're going to continue to forge ahead and hope the idiots among you generate enough positive noise for us to drown out the dissenting signals'. I understand they need to monetize (god, it's taken HOW LONG!?!? Jesus!), but that doesn't excuse them from intellectual dishonesty. People have genuine concerns and they should be addressed clearl…

> I understand they need to monetize (god, it's taken HOW LONG!?!? Jesus!), but that doesn't excuse them from intellectual dishonesty. I thought, "We run a business," was a blanket excuse for intellectual dishonesty in general.

> I thought, "We run a business," was a blanket excuse for intellectual dishonesty in general.

So, uh, what are you doing on a site dedicated in no small part to startups? Are you calling all of us who run businesses intellectually dishonest?

Re: Instagram's official response

#227

Post by FourthProtocol »

porker wrote: post #225
cbs wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have a hard time imagining a more better apology from Instagram. I don't. This message from on high wasn't particularly bad for a startup, but there are plenty of internet "lifestyle businesses" that can communicate with their user base much much better. The guys who accidentally turn their hobby projects into a small, sustainable business for themselves talk to their userbase with a level of candidness that you'l…

> but there are plenty of internet "lifestyle businesses" that can communicate with their user base much much better. Like..? > The guys who accidentally turn their hobby projects into a small, sustainable business for themselves talk to their userbase with a level of candidness that you'll never see from startup guys I'd really like to know which, so I can learn from them.

> Like..?

It's actions that define an individual or an organisation, and not words. Better would've been an unambiguous policy update that clearly quells people's concerns, without the feel-good corporate messaging.

Trust is easily given, sometimes earned. It is also easily lost, and very hard to re-earn.

Their app is symptomatic of an immature industry in which trivial/fun apps far outnumber and precede useful business/productivity apps. An app in the former category with a cavalier attitude to its users will be dropped first, given the arrival of a worthwhile replacement.

Re: Instagram's official response

#228

Post by mherdeg »

lnanek2 wrote: post #217

tumblr seems to be doing quite well just letting users promote their posts. instagram could be moving that direction, not just for businesses. i guess they have facebook doing it from the business side, though, so it is natural for them

Speaking of which, how cool is it that Instagram's official blog is a tumblr? That infrastructure is everywhere!

Re: Instagram's official response

#229

Post by tripzilch »

> Legal documents are easy to misinterpret.

Actually the reason legal documents are written in a quirky funny dialect is to make them less ambiguous, not more so. If they are, whoever's written them is doing it wrong.

In today's social environment, the way people are made to feel like customers/users, only to later be sold as product, with little regard to privacy and/or control over their data and profile, isn't it funny how people are starting to assume the worst?

In all fairness, except for that bad start, later on you write the confusing language was your mistake, so you probably meant to say "Legal documents are hard to write, especially when people actually read them".

> Ownership Rights Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos.

Um, yeah. What's "Ownership Rights"? It's not a legal term. Yet you capitalized and bolded the term. I'm sure you didn't mean to say "Copyrights" because you know what those are very well and take great care to not mention them. Also you can't have meant "Personality Rights" because they're generally non-transferable.

On the other hand, at least you acknowledged the public's reaction. And rather quickly, at that. That's good.

You also say you're listening and will improve the wording of the TOS. How that will turn out remains to be seen, when it happens. If so, I hope you'll excuse my skepticism.

Re: Instagram's official response

#230

Post by tripzilch »

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…

Exactly. Given they made this mistake, this reaction was exactly the best they could do, short of immediately releasing a new and improved TOS, "better like this?"

It remains to be seen how well they've really listened when they put up their next attempt at writing "easy to misinterpret legal documents".

And after that, the next TOS change, and the next one after that ...

Post reply on HN