[blhack]

Oh for crying out loud, they did not try to "sneak this by".

Stop trying to cast a simple snafu regarding a ToS as some evil conspiracy.

Remember that the people running this company are you peers. It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today.

They're your friends, or just like your friends. Knock it off.

[23david]

I disagree. This was a carefully worded response. Notice "commit to you that we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion. As we review your feedback and stories in the press, we’re going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos." They expected this.

It's a classic move from the Facebook playbook. Push out a far-reaching privacy policy or feature update. Release a message or press release saying that "we're listening". Make token changes and say "we've listened and made changes". And just in case people start to sue, vigorously lobby and donate to government officials to keep the regulatory heat off their backs.

They are trying to get away with as much as they can. These stupid companies are going to be the reason why 10 years from now the Internet is going to be a morass of government regulation.

Don't work for or support companies that act like this. Shame on them. Period.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a domain name or start an Internet company without taking a licensing exam.

[nokcha]

>I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a domain name ... without taking a licensing exam.

Who would impose such a requirement of licensure? Certainly not the government --- that would be a prior restraint on freedom of speech/press and therefore unconstitutional.

[pepr]

Well, they would first impose it and then somebody sues them and it starts bouncing around various courts for the next 5 years. It would take some serious time until there would be a final ruling.

[ryguytilidie]

Man, this is some absolutely insane over the top hyperbole.

No one tried to cast this as a conspiracy, they simply called it what it is, a company monetizing by making the user experience worse.

"Remember that the people running this company are you peers. It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today."

I don't know whats craziest here. First, equating "burning them at the stake" to "deleting their accounts on that persons website" is absolute lunacy and I don't know how anyone could take your points seriously. Second, pretending that because these people look like my friends, they should get a free pass on changing their terms to better monetize user content is just lame, just because someone looks like me and is a millionaire doesn't make them immune to incredibly correct criticism.

[marshray]

But most likely it wouldn't make the user experince worse. If anything, it would allow them to avoid banner ads and make the experience better.

That said, sounds like people aren't willing to "agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

[cube13]

If someone's directly using my content and getting paid for it, I want a cut. It's really that simple.

[daeken]

If they're using your content to make money, you're being paid for it: you're getting access to the service.

[onedev]

Exactly.

I can't believe that people just expect everything to come to them for free.

[ryguytilidie]

So people signed up for Instagram under their old terms, where everything quite literally did come to them for free. Now Instagram changed their terms to monetize peoples content. People don't like this and would not have joined originally with these terms. People STILL mock them for "expecting something for free".

Well, when you create the expectation, as Instagram did, that things will come for free, and then you stop fulfilling that expectation, customers will leave. Not sure how long it will take startup founders to understand and it blows my mind how frequently people on HN seem to act like people "owe" a site something for the service they're providing. If I get an invite to your free photosharing site with features X, Y and Z, you're creating an expectation. If you change your offering once you get a ton of users in the hopes of monetizing them, you're changing the offering and these people leaving is justified. The reason they got there in the first place was because of your offering, which you're now changing.

[gcmartinelli]

So, make them pay for the open source they use...

[chmars]

It's a business, not a personal relationship.

My peers and friends at least would never use my pictures to create ads and in any case, my relations to peer and friends are not based on comprehensive and one-sided ToS …

[chadillac83]

By posting on HN you are agreeing to my peer-friendship ToS. As part of this ToS you hereby grant me unfettered access to your personal finances.

edit: give me a $1

[chmars]

Thumbs up for letting me go to bed in a very happy mood … :)

[Vivtek]

And at the low cost of only a dollar! I think grandparent's onto something big here.

[jiggy2011]

Just because they work in a similar area does not make them "friends". Besides it is good for an industry to keep it's peers in check.

See also: Banking.

[guelo]

None of my friends communicate to millions of people via lawyers and PR departments.

[mburshteyn]

They may be a distinct brand, but Instagram is still owned by Facebook, the company openly attempting to shift society's views on privacy.

[mnicole]

My personal friendships with people employed by Google, EA and Microsoft have no affiliation with how much I support those companies.

[FuzzyDunlop]

Your statement doesn't hold true because actual peers call each other out on bad moves, and the failure (or lack of attempt) to find an actual good move.

If we take your words as gospel, then we should be critical of them and we should take action.

This is also because Instagram as a business is not a peer, does not follow advice, and absolutely needs to be burnt at the stake (and salivated over?) to realise it made a mistake.

[001sky]

Remember that the people running this company are you peers. It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today. They're your friends, or just like your friends. Knock it off.

-- If not in jest, this is rediculously naive. just FYI.

[fweez]

In the blog post announcing the changes (http://blog.instagram.com/post/38143346554/privacy-and-terms...), they called out a "few key updates." The changes to the TOS were described as, "Our updated terms of service help protect you, and prevent spam and abuse as we grow."

Our "friends" over there sure didn't go out of their way to call out an important change in the TOS. If it wasn't an attempt to sneak this by, it's indistinguishable from one.

[gcmartinelli]

Are you implying that <i>none</i> of your peers take questionable actions in business? If so, open your eyes.