Hacker News Reader

Comment by smosher | Hacker News Reader

This is the first time XKCD has struck me as being ignorant... I'm assuming that it's for the sake of the joke.

People have a right to be annoyed by this, in fact I wish it was more common. Rights to our own creations should not be taken so lightly. So I support the sentiments of boycotters, even though Facebook is well within their rights to make this change. I don't support the attitude that it's unjust, but overreaction is better than none.

View on HN

I think the punchline here is that it is a Sisyphean task to find (or expect) a "free" web service that doesn't already profit from user submitted content.

I don't think it is making light of people who are annoyed/boycotting... It is making light of the line of thought that companies we give our data to (for free) are ever going to use it for what we want them to, and not what they want to (make money).

This comic is saying that if we care about the rights to our work, don't give the work to anyone.

This comic is saying that if we care about the rights to our work, don't give the work to anyone

Publication is a method of promulgating copyright. When you publish your ideas/images online one you are not "giving" your image rights to instagram (or to any publisher). In the same way, when you make a telephone call, you are not giving your data to the police and 3rd parties (or the phone company) to listen to. Consumers and producers are both better off with "dumb pipes", than this alternative reality. Businesses are continually trying to exploit their position, and are not beyond unethical/shady/opportunistic behaviour. This incident is a sort of 'Exhibit A'.

Except Instagram isn't and was never designed to be a pipe. HTTP and email are the dumb pipes you are looking for in this situation.

Don't disagree. But rather than being 'dumb' they are being 'too clever, by half'. And that is the problem.

They are grooming their users to be abused, building trust to be exploited. Like pedophiles.

They are grooming their users to be abused, building trust to be exploited.

I believe the comic also asks the question: How many times are we going to fall for this?

And in the case of the paedophile, there is a reason its illegal (in many jurisdictions).

"when you make a telephone call, you are not giving your data to the police and 3rd parties (or the phone company) to listen to"

There is contention about whether this is the case, now that many eschew land lines: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57493811-83/federal-court-o...

I think you are reading Chad's Garage as a direct analogy to Instagram, which I don't think was the intention. I think it's an over-the-top exaggeration of Instagram. The joke is about the user who expresses outrage over the free service doing something against the users' interests, but isn't even quite willing to stop using it.

The title given is "Instagram", not "Chad's Garage". I got the joke. I would find it funnier if that something were something other than what happened in this instance. It's not sour grapes either, I've never been an Instagram user.

I think the big problem is that social sites create value with a network effect (metcalfe's law). The only reason they are "free" is to drive the network to a size where it can be monetized.

>> Rights to our own creations should not be taken so lightly.

Just like possession of our belongings should not be taken lightly, which is why nobody would actually put all their stuff in Chad's garage. People have already taken the rights to their creations lightly by posting them on a free service.

Okay so, let's accept for a moment that people who put stuff in Chad's garage were being dumb.

How does that, in any way, justify Chad selling your stuff?

Whether or not people were smart trusting Instagram in the first place is an entirely separate issue from Instagram's new TOS.

It doesn't, but that's not the punchline. The punchline is the reaction. People are almost enraged enough to boycott instagram over this.

They should be boycotting instagram after this (or actually, before this). I know full well that any photo I upload to facebook/instagram/etc is no longer mine and the whole world can see it. So I definitely don't store my stuff there, it would be insane.

> How does that, in any way, justify Chad selling your stuff?

You aren't paying Chad to store your stuff, but Chad incurs costs for doing so; Chad has every right to sell some of it to cover his storage costs or just toss it all out on the street. Freeloaders don't have "rights".

Could he not have asked you to maybe pay something, instead? I mean, it's not "everything's free" and "we're selling your stuff" are the only two options here...

I would imagine it's much easier to get a business to pay for use of their content than getting a free app consumer to crack open their wallet.

Chad has made his garage available for storage without requiring or even requesting a fee. If his next step is to sell your stuff unless you come tote it away--while not actually urging you to do so--one can reasonably draw the conclusion that Chad is a scoundrel who had this plan in mind from the start.

As one should have.

People have already taken the rights to their creations lightly by posting them on a free service.

I agree, but only in the sense that they probably haven't read or cared much about the terms. Sharing content is different than giving up copyright. People are sure to reuse and redistribute it, but I do believe in fair use regardless of whether the rightsholder is a big company or an individual.

The "creations" that people are posting are low-res cellphone pics of food and random scenery with a faux-retro filter added. Why so serious?

Let me guess: some people cherish their memories. I have some phone pics I cherish, like my kids talking to this Tibetan dog. They are on a drive at home with a backup, but...

From http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/biography

> Over a six-month period in 2011, Brown documented the face of battle in Libya using a camera phone, challenging the standard script for war reportage.

For example:

http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/the-libyan-revolution/vv163

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/nov/16/mobile-ph...

Just because the device is basic, doesn't make mobile phone photography worthless.

And... ? Can this person no longer post photos to Instagram now? What has Instagram done to this person that is so terrible?

I was replying to your comment here:

> The "creations" that people are posting are low-res cellphone pics of food and random scenery with a faux-retro filter added. Why so serious?

... I was just pointing out that some photos are art, not just "creations".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/12/19/instagram-...

Looks like the National Geographic is doing more with Instagram than just some filters and bad food photography.

I still do not understand the outrage over this. How would the new TOS actually negatively affect the users? What would ACTUALLY happen to them that is so horrible?

Here is a hypothetical:

1. I post a photo of a dinner table at a restaurant that shows some fizzy drinks in glasses.

2. SodaStream wants to post an ad on Instagram, and my photo gets selected kinda like a stock-photo would be selected because it is drink/food related, and it gets shown somewhere on Instagram's website.

Result: my life is not negatively impacted by this in any way, and the world continues turning.

My reaction: If ever saw this happening, my reaction would be "Whoa cool, that's a picture I took! And now tons of people are seeing it, instead of just the 5 or 6 people that normally see my Instagram photos. I'm internet famous, haha!"

The blogo-sphere's reaction: "RAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEE!!!!!!!!!" I ask: "Seriously, what is the big deal here?" They respond: "Just shut up, and RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!!!"

Not everyone has the same reaction about everything.

For some people, its not cool. And, being unable to buy a controlling stock option in the company to make it obey their wishes, they used the lever of public dissent.

Looks like it worked, too.

National Geographic is building their whole business on their photos. It may be quite reasonable that the previous ToS was compatible with their business, and the new ones, which allow Instagram to get paid for NatGeo photos instead of NatGeo itself, aren't acceptible anymore.

The whole point is not about the majority of dinnertable photos - for those content producers who make quality photos that everybody (not just your friends) want to look at, the content rights are an important issue. And these few users do represent a lot of value, and their leaving would hurt both Instagram and the content consumers.

"I don't like some of Instagram submissions, therefore it is all worthless and not worth getting upset over."

That's not what I am saying at all. Maybe I am just doing a poor job of articulating my point. All I am asking is for someone to explain to my WHY this is worth getting upset over?

Here is one of my other responses on the matter, copy-pasted so hopefully you can explain to me why this is a big deal:

[ start copy-paste ]

I still do not understand the outrage over this. How would the new TOS actually negatively affect the users? What would ACTUALLY happen to them that is so horrible?

Here is a hypothetical:

1. I post a photo of a dinner table at a restaurant that shows some fizzy drinks in glasses.

Result: my life is not negatively impacted by this in any way, and the world continues turning.

The blogo-sphere's reaction: "RAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEE!!!!!!!!!" I ask: "Seriously, what is the big deal here?" They respond: "Just shut up, and RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!!!"

[ end copy-paste ]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com