Instagram's official response • Hacker News Board

Re: Instagram's official response

#251

Post by primitur » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 6:48 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #234

primitur wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This whole event shows me (or at least, reminds me) that there are limits to what words can fix. I think it should show you that there are limits to what people will understand. This is an APOLOGY from Instagram. It cannot be construed as anything more than a PR Document. However: their TERMS OF SERVICE are a REAL CONTRACT. Whatever they say about the contract is one thing - once you agree to that contract in a lega…

They promise to change the terms of service.

When they do, it will be news. Otherwise its just PR control of a potential disaster for Instagram.

Re: Instagram's official response

#252

Post by marshray » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 8:34 PM UTC

TillE wrote: post #173

jacquesm wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your friend needs a better lawyer.

It really depends on the jurisdiction. If very similar clauses have already been tested and thrown out in the appropriate court, then sure, you don't need to worry about them. If a lawyer is advising you that something is unenforceable, they're probably right.

ISTR this did relate to something very specific about a specific state.

Re: Instagram's official response

#253

Post by foobarqux » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 12:13 AM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #231

porker wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>> but there are plenty of internet "lifestyle businesses" that can communicate with their user base much much better. > Like..? MetaFilter [1] does an excellent job of owner-moderator-user interaction. Here are some key features: * Because of the size of the site, they don't have to rely on community moderation - and the moderators they do have do a very patient and professional job. You don't get capricious or chil…

Metafilter seems to be going the way of kuro5hin

Re: Instagram's official response

#254

Post by tobyjsullivan » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 1:49 AM UTC

frossie wrote: post #56

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #25

I like this response. Terms of Service often need to change over time and, as of late, the Internet seems to have made a game out of ripping the changes to shreds when put forward by a known brand. I'm looking forward to seeing how companies handle ToS changes moving forward. Is there a way to avoid the backlash altogether?

Is there a way to avoid the backlash altogether? Err, write TOSes that are not a land grab of other people's intellectual private property and/or private data? You make it sound like it is unreasonable to care about that.

I think you underestimate the Internet's ability to find things to misquote and complain about.

The predominant backlash to Google's recent ToS changes come to mind as an example of selective content being reported out of context.

Re: Instagram's official response

#255

Post by onedev » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 3:29 AM UTC

bobsoap wrote: post #186

onedev wrote: post #185

All of you a pathetic. Along with the blogosphere.

> All of you a pathetic. Along with the blogosphere. Care to spellcheck and elaborate?

No, because that was a typo and typos happen.

Re: Instagram's official response

#256

Post by fudged71 » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 9:09 AM UTC

gwillen wrote: post #145

ChuckMcM wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That provision of the agreement wasn't the reason I quit, but it was a little rock in my shoe that never went away until I did. If you add up the total number of people at Google who have complained about that rock, and the number of people who haven't but would if they were prompted, suddenly "too much trouble" looks a little different, IMHO.

So does google still own all your/employees' off-hours IP?

Re: Instagram's official response

#257

Post by gwillen » Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 5:31 AM UTC

fudged71 wrote: post #256

gwillen wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That provision of the agreement wasn't the reason I quit, but it was a little rock in my shoe that never went away until I did. If you add up the total number of people at Google who have complained about that rock, and the number of people who haven't but would if they were prompted, suddenly "too much trouble" looks a little different, IMHO.

So does google still own all your/employees' off-hours IP?

That depends on who you ask and how you look at it.

Google has always insisted that it's only IP that's relevant to Google's business. Critics (such as myself) have always retorted that ANYTHING can be construed to be relevant to Google's business.

The only thing that's materially changed in response to complaints, is that there is now a review committee that you can submit projects to, and after some weeks they can grant you permission to keep the IP.

But if Google actually believes that your specific project is related to their business, you're not going to get an approval. For example, all applications for smartphones are explicitly blanket excluded.

Re: Instagram's official response

#258

Post by forensic » Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 6:28 AM UTC

ianstallings wrote: post #240

forensic wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boo hoo, the multi-millionaires are getting insulted when they try to fuck their users! Won't someone please think of the feelings of the millionaires! I'm pretty sure they can wipe away their tears with $100 bills and their feelings won't suffer permanent damage. Since their feelings are so much more important than all of the people they are trying to fuck over.

Are you an adult? These are your peers not billionaire bankers leeching off the backs of the poor. You know, programmers, marketers, entrepreneurs. They made it. And you want to tear them down because they've been successful? Now that they have money they are automagically evil? What planet am I on?

Who made the call to fuck the users? Whoever it was, fuck that guy.

Instagram is a company. The leaders are responsible for that unethical behavior and I'm not going to excuse them out of some bullshit appeal to programmer loyalty.

The fact that these are peers is MORE reason for us to be calling them out. Do you really want your profession to be associated with this sleazy behavior? They are poisoning the well for all of us.

Tech people today have the power and money to reshape the entire world. Yet so many of them are focused on extracting a few dollars through grossly unethical behavior. This is not praiseworthy behavior in any sense and you should be ashamed of yourself for defending it.

If my peers are going to be as sleazy and ethically bankrupt as, say, politicians or wall street bankers then I don't want them as peers. I would gladly throw them under the bus to protect the reputation of all tech people.