Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Dec 2012 21:23 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Derek Powazek exposes the meaninglessness of the already overused tripe 'If you're not paying for the product, you are the product'. "But we should not assume that, just because we pay a company they'll treat us better, or that if we're not paying that the company is allowed to treat us like shit. Reality is just more complicated than that. What matters is how companies demonstrate their respect for their customers. We should hold their feet to the fire when they demonstrate a lack of respect. And we should all stop saying, 'if you're not paying for the product, you are the product', because it doesn't really mean anything, it excuses the behavior of bad companies, and it makes you sound kind of like a stoner looking at their hand for the first time." Nailed it.
Permalink for comment 545931
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
isntagram, internet webs and ads
by siraf72 on Thu 20th Dec 2012 09:26 UTC
Member since:

The overall point of the article is sound, if a little obvious.

I will say however, that many people are misinterpreting user's reaction to the instagram changes. Sure there are sheeple who think their photo's will be slurped and sold by instagram, which was clearly never the case. However, there are many people, myself included who have a fundamental problem with the principle of being 'forced' to handover licenses of your photos, even on a private accounts.

That nothing is truly private on the internet (crazy encryption + obscurity aside) isn't the point. If a service says "this account is private to only those you allow" and then says "but we'll take a copy of every picture and *maybe* use it" doesn't cut it.

As has already been pointed out recently on the comments section, this isn't about controlling the spread of your content, it's about controlling it's *legal* use. Just as people (mainly on this site ;) ) get up in arms when companies violate GPL T&Cs, many content producers on Instagram are up in arms about this content grab)

Back to the article, to be sure there are paid services that are rubbish. But for now, flickr as a paid service makes zero claims to your content (in fact they help you understand how to license it to suit your needs) and has a fairly good track record.

Paid doesn't mean good. But alas, "free" generally means advertising, which means you're behaviour IS the product being sold. There's got to be more to the internet then bloody selling ad space. As the article suggests, i'm voting with my feet. If after 30 days, instagram doesn't change it's policy for the better, i'm out of there. Fortunately, i'm under no illusion that my photos will be missed much ;)

Whether paid or free, it does help to read those pesky dry T&Cs.

-- excuse the usual typos .

Edited 2012-12-20 09:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3