Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#61

Post by 89a » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:03 PM UTC

alpb wrote: post #55

Google+ is no different: 11.2 you agree that this license includes a right for google to make such content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such content in connection with the provision of those services. 11.3 you understand that google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the services t…

"Wil Wheaton on… PLEASE PLEASE DON'T FORGET ABOUT ME PLEASE"

Would be a better title

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#62

Post by bad_user » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:04 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #50

bad_user wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is not that " DRM in general is impossible " and I fail to see how DRM could solve the issue with Instagram, even if DRM wasn't totally broken. Facebook can access your phone contacts and Instagram can access your photos only with your consent . You're willingly giving them that data. The far bigger issue here is that services like Instagram can take and use your data without your consent indirectly.…

You don't own somebody's phone number because you have it in your contact DB. You are willingly giving them the phone numbers of everyone in your phone book... your contacts are not giving their consent to having their data sent wherever. DRM would, hypothetically, solve the problem of giving your phone number to somebody but not allowing them to share it further without your consent. Except, of course, it doesn't. B…

I wasn't trying to defend these services. Instead I believe that such EULAs should be against the law, as the fine print is too subtle to be understood by a majority.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#63

Post by mnicole » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:10 PM UTC

pretoriusB wrote: post #31

imgabe wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The backslash from the users Yes, this backlash from users is exactly what's happening. You can't simultaneously try to dissuade the backlash from happening and depend on it to prevent the undesirable events from taking place.

> Yes, this backlash from users is exactly what's happening. You can't simultaneously try to dissuade the backlash from happening and depend on it to prevent the undesirable events from taking place. No, but I CAN and AM expecting people participating in the backlash: a) NOT to behave like it's the first time they are seeing this b) NOT to behave like this move was intended as perceived, and c) NOT to behave like thi…

> c) NOT to behave like this wont be reverted pronto.

Like Facebook has been stifled by users' opinions before.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#64

Post by pseut » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

zaidf wrote: post #40

Meanwhile just to read this post, I must accept some google+ TOS and create my nth g+ account: Mobile terms of service By tapping 'Accept', you agree that Google will use your location in this product and accept the Mobile Terms of Service.

I got the same thing because I was signed into gmail. After I logged out I could read the post w/out having to accept g+.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#65

Post by pitchups » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

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 5: It is possible to monetize free services in numerous ways without violating the privacy of your users, reneging on a TOS they signed earlier, and generally destroying their trust or expectations of fairness.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#66

Post by zaidf » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

BitMastro wrote: post #53

zaidf wrote: post #40

Meanwhile just to read this post, I must accept some google+ TOS and create my nth g+ account: Mobile terms of service By tapping 'Accept', you agree that Google will use your location in this product and accept the Mobile Terms of Service.

No you don't. You need to join g+ only to reply to the post, but didn't I need to join HN to reply to your post?

Were you logged into a google account? I was logged in and got the above screen. I was not trying to reply--kind of hard to when you can't even read the post.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#67

Post by res0nat0r » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:15 PM UTC

pitchups wrote: post #65

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 5: It is possible to monetize free services in numerous ways without violating the privacy of your users, reneging on a TOS they signed earlier, and generally destroying their trust or expectations of fairness.

Note on all of the TOS' they state they can change it at any time in the future for any reason, and you agree to this before you click 'I Accept'.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#68

Post by _delirium » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:18 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #39

jval wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

All of them did it. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram. First they get popular, then when they're big enough having the luxury of lock-in, they turn to fucking the same users that made them popular. Web 2.0 - taking the milk out of stupid cows that should have known better.

Even further back, look at what Gracenote did with CDDB, crowdsourcing the data as a community project, up until they decided to lock it up.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#69

Post by jws » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:27 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #58

polshaw wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia? And surely you could just buy shots of them?

Maybe there were too many to reasonably buy for a small product, or maybe the names were generated 'on the fly'?

Quantity, price, administrative overhead, and dynamic creation all played into it.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#70

Post by tghw » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:28 PM UTC

joonix wrote: post #54

jws wrote: post #15

The celebrity angle is interesting here. I eventually killed a little product because it was too hard to legally acquire face shots of celebrities and it just didn't have enough zing without pictures by names. If enough celebrities used Instagram, and Instagram could figure out their accounts, they could open autopaparazzi.com.

What? There are plenty of photo services that will license you photos of celebrities. Getty Images for one. We're not talking about publicity shy people here.

It depends on the use. If you are using the photos for news purposes, then yes, this works. But if you are using it for commercial purposes, then you would also need a release showing that the person (celebrity or not) received sufficient compensation for the use of their likeness. Without that, you can be sued very easily.