Instagram back-pedals in face of user outrage

Re: "Door in the Face" technique

Shouldn't that be "book in the face" technique?

Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

"How about the escape of not putting all your private information up on the internet in the first place?"

Or even more fun, fill your profile with utterly bogus data, and laugh when FB start pitching ads at you for Morris Dancing lessons :-)

Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

- Posting anything that you want private (especially pictures) to any social network is like hiring Gary Glitter to watch the kids. -

What the hell have you been smoking? No, inviting Gary Glitter, unsupervised is like hiring Gary Glitter to watch the kids! Posting too much personal info on a social website just means you bit of prat and should be far more careful and little less trusting of people you do not know, with my advice to read some Phillip K Dick novels to understand why. It is not quite the same and inviting a peadophile to fiddle with your kids!

Jesus wept, some people really need to get some perspective and scale in their supposedly witty metaphors!

@Alpha Tony

Um.. How about the escape of not putting all your private information up on the internet in the first place?

I'm on Facebook, but don't have ANYTHING I don't want kept private on it. It has my real name and photo, plus a few other photos I've uploaded at various times, but doesn't have my email exposed, or phone number, job info, birthday, relationship status filled in at all (well birthday is, since they require it, but the birthday is the wrong month, year and day so fat lot of good that does them for marketing) It is a good way to keep in touch with people I otherwise wouldn't, and a good time killer. It is quite possible to be on Facebook without "putting all your private information up on the internet".

My concern isn't giving them private info, that's one's choice. I chose one way, others (either less clueful or more trusting than I) have chosen differently. My concern is the kind of crap they tried to pull with Instragram, and even themselves in the past - but luckily had to backtrack both times after a big outcry. I don't want them using my name or photo in ads they show to others. That's just plain wrong, and luckily even the "over sharers" on Facebook seem to realize this, based on the size of the outcry when Facebook tried it the first time and when they tried it again with Instagram.

Whether these ads would say "Doug uses an iPhone, you should too" (which is true, they know because I access FB using the iPhone app) or whether it was something totally random like if I happened to 'like' someone's post about a Dodge Charger, then they use me in a Dodge Charger ad, I don't want it. If Facebook wants to do that, and gives me the choice of ALLOWING them do it and getting paid for it, like everyone else who shills for a product, fine. But they damn well can't just go ahead and do it without my permission, and the minute they do is the last time I ever login to Facebook. And it looks like I'd be far from alone. That type of mass exodus off Facebook (regardless of where people went) has so far been a powerful enough threat in terms of lost revenue that they don't consider it worthwhile tradeoff for "improving" their targeted advertising to those who remain.

Re: the camera and lens you use

So basically iPhone, which means salary between £0 to £infinity.

--

Ermm, well it does allow you upload photos ( including the EXIF data ) from other places, so that is where the real data comes from, the EXIF which 90% of the happy-snapper camera users do not even know exists. Given that GPS data is now stored in EXIF especially from mobiles and the more expensive happy-snapper pocket cams offering this feature, this is pretty interesting stuff!

@ribosome

"where illiterates without computers have been fined millions of dollars for allegedly downloading tatty pop songs"

Can you give me some examples of that, or is your post just an example of your stupidity? And where are you getting your data to back up your contention that any significant percentage of pro bono lawyers are occupied with cases involving filesharing? Especially now, when no suits against filesharers have been institutes since years ago.

And mightn't there be even a single lawyer who might want to start a class-action suit?

And if it's alright for The Pirate Bay and Google - among many many others - to profit by expropriating the work of others, then what exactly is wrong with Facebook and Instagram appropriating the photos and data of their users?

Or is it just the case that content can be stolen if YOU deem it "tatty"? Or can anyone deem it "tatty"? If so, it's lucky for Instagram who on that basis could appropriate pretty much ever picture posted there.

The thing is, that people like you not only pull these kinds of statements out of your ass, but you also believe them after you say them.