
Instagram Isn't a Public Utility - The Industry - jkoschei
http://theindustry.cc/2012/12/18/instagram-isnt-a-public-utility/
======
fennecfoxen
Instagram doesn't need to be a public utility: it needs to figure out a way to
make its profits without trying to pull sneaky, unethical stunts like these
which confuse, mislead and exploit its users.

------
summerdown2
> Social media is not a public utility. Using Instagram is not a right. When
> you begin using these services, you enter a legally binding contact with
> them, defined in the Terms of Service.

I think there may be a difference in audiences here. You have the literal
version of US law, which is what this article appears to be based upon, but
you also have people's expectations, which is that companies should not abuse
their position with respect to the data they hold.

From an American point of view, the idea that people can form any contract
they like with a company presumably makes sense. From a European point of
view, there are public limits on what a company can do with data. The Uk is
not alone in having a data protection act that absolutely limits the use of
data sell on, for example.

This of course brings up the question of which law applies, and companies are
very adroit at manipulating this. But it's hardly surprising they aren't so
good with public opinion.

My own view is that cloud providers should have a European style data
protection act, but that's mostly because I like the law and find it to my
benefit. However, even where there isn't a law, if I think my data is being
abused, I'm more than happy to call a company out on it.

My counter argument to the one that says: they're a company, they can form any
contract they like

is: I'm a free individual, I can protest that.

~~~
dfxm12
The other question is why does Instagram (Or Facebook, etc) have the power to
retroactively and unilaterally change the terms of this contract?

Why do they alone have that power?

------
bradleyland
"The internet brings out extremism in its users."

You don't say? Extremism like, "These are somewhat icky, sure, but not in the
least surprising." and "When you begin using these services, you enter a
legally binding contact with them, defined in the Terms of Service. Clicking
“I agree” without reading that document is insanely irresponsible — you could
be selling your soul without even realizing it."

If you're wondering why that's extremism, then you need to take a step back
and get some perspective about where you lie on the pro-consumer<->pro-
business spectrum. In my opinion, the author's views push pretty heavily
toward the pro-business side. There _are_ limits to what you can put in an
EULA. They're pretty far reaching, but they're there.

Also, you can't simply tell users they shouldn't be upset and expect them to
listen. That's not the way people work. You can enumerate bullet points and
write lengthy essays until your fingers fall off, but a sufficiently large
population of angry users will always have their voice heard.

------
leephillips
I agree with the main thrust of this article, although I'm not sure he's
entirely right about the legal force of click-through agreements. Mainly I'm
confused about the decisions and expectations of people who decide to use a
service like this. I take pictures with my iPhone; if I want them to be public
I put them on my website; if I want to share with certain people I either
email the pictures or put them up at a secret URL. If I want to alter the
pictures there are plenty of Apps to do that locally on the phone, or Gimp,
ImageMagick, etc. on my computer. Why would I decide to give my pictures to
some company? And why would I imagine that they would do things for me without
trying to profit from it?

