1150: Instagram

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

mr.meker
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:10 am UTC

1150: Instagram

Postby mr.meker » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:21 am UTC

Image

Mouseover: I'm gonna call the cops and get Chad arrested for theft, then move all my stuff to the house across the street. Hopefully the owners there are more responsible.

Very good analogy.

User avatar
Himself
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:17 am UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Himself » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:23 am UTC

Quite frankly I'm surprised it isn't an end-of-the-world related strip, given the date.
"Looking me am a civilization person"
-Ratio Tile

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby rhomboidal » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:25 am UTC

He really shouldn't store his priceless Impressionists portrait collection in Chad's garage. The damp is a killer.

User avatar
Lukeonia1
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Lukeonia1 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:37 am UTC

Himself wrote:Quite frankly I'm surprised it isn't an end-of-the-world related strip, given the date.


Same here. Somehow seems a little anticlimactic.

Also, this IS an excellent analogy. I thought of mentioning that Chad pays for his garage by putting ads on the shelves, but then I looked it up and discovered Chad has no income. Guess I can't blame him for wanting to CL all that dude's stuff.

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby BAReFOOt » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:58 am UTC

There is a huge fallacy in that comic, that is just like going to the north pole, and then at that exact place, saying “I will now go north!”:
Just like the above statement in that context, saying “property” in the context of information makes no sense. It is not related to reality.
In reality, there is no such thing as “intellectual property”. It is physically meaningless/impossible nonsense.

The organized crime (Content Mafia) did spread that FUD and bullshit anyway. Please stop living in their perverse delusional world. It harms all creative people, including you.

A little hint: It was not “your” information from the moment on where you uploaded it to the Internet or gave it to anyone else via any other means. That was the point where your control over it ended, and where it stopped to be under the control of just one individual. It was also the point where you started to be able to prove that that information even existed in the first place.

Such differences between the laws information has to adhere to and those that matter/energy has to adhere to, are the reason why information is not a physical good, and can never be “owned”, “stolen”, “rented”, or anything like that.

So the analogy in this comic is completely invalid nonsense! Which should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when Instagram “sells” “your” information (pictures), you still have them, while when Chad (actually) sells you physical objects (stuff), it is gone.

What the fuck, Randall?

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby BAReFOOt » Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:06 am UTC

Lukeonia1 wrote:Also, this IS an excellent analogy.


It is a horrible completely invalid analogy. Because when Chad sells your stuff, it is gone. When Instagram “sells“ “your” information, it is still there.

Wow, have people, even here, really been brainwashed so much by the organized crime? A couple of years ago, thinking like this would have been completely taboo, and you would have been laughed and shot off the planet for that nonsense. And around here, that’s still the case.

Please stop supporting criminals.

Lukeonia1 wrote:I thought of mentioning that Chad pays for his garage by putting ads on the shelves, but then I looked it up and discovered Chad has no income. Guess I can't blame him for wanting to CL all that dude's stuff.


So you are saying that when some complete idiot created an utterly impossible business model that can never work in reality, and he therefore fails in every aspect, to sustain his business, that that makes it acceptable for you that he switches to a criminal business model?
Wow. I’ve gotta try that on you the next time, if you’re 1. that easily abused, and 2. even like it.

Eutychus
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:01 am UTC
Location: France

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Eutychus » Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:09 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:So the analogy in this comic is completely invalid nonsense! Which should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when Instagram “sells” “your” information (pictures), you still have them, while when Chad (actually) sells you physical objects (stuff), it is gone.


You make a good case, but I won't be leaving anything in your garage any time soon...
Be very careful about rectilinear assumptions. Raptors could be hiding there - ucim

TheoGB
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:38 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby TheoGB » Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:34 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:There is a huge fallacy in that comic, that is just like going to the north pole, and then at that exact place, saying “I will now go north!”:
Just like the above statement in that context, saying “property” in the context of information makes no sense. It is not related to reality.
In reality, there is no such thing as “intellectual property”. It is physically meaningless/impossible nonsense.

The organized crime (Content Mafia) did spread that FUD and bullshit anyway. Please stop living in their perverse delusional world. It harms all creative people, including you.

A little hint: It was not “your” information from the moment on where you uploaded it to the Internet or gave it to anyone else via any other means. That was the point where your control over it ended, and where it stopped to be under the control of just one individual. It was also the point where you started to be able to prove that that information even existed in the first place.

Such differences between the laws information has to adhere to and those that matter/energy has to adhere to, are the reason why information is not a physical good, and can never be “owned”, “stolen”, “rented”, or anything like that.

So the analogy in this comic is completely invalid nonsense! Which should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when Instagram “sells” “your” information (pictures), you still have them, while when Chad (actually) sells you physical objects (stuff), it is gone.

What the fuck, Randall?


What's your point exactly? I'm having trouble working out if you're saying Instagram are evil or that people are stupid for being upset at what Instagram are doing?

Nonnie
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:33 am UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Nonnie » Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:37 am UTC

It'd be a more apt analogy if chad came over every day and pretty much begged you to store stuff in his garage, left fliers about it, got everyone else to do it and bug you to do it too.. In that case I think I would be annoyed if he sent that message out of the blue. (I don't use instagram and have no feelings about it either way, just feeling about analogies.)

Viltris
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:58 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Viltris » Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:37 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:So the analogy in this comic is completely invalid nonsense! Which should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when Instagram “sells” “your” information (pictures), you still have them, while when Chad (actually) sells you physical objects (stuff), it is gone.

What the fuck, Randall?


I think you're completely missing the point. The point of the comic is that people are overreacting to the whole Instagram fiasco. It sounds like the point you're trying to make is that people are overreacting to the whole Instagram fiasco. Granted, you both take different paths to reach the same conclusion, but it sounds like you and Randall actually agree on this.

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Angelastic » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:01 am UTC

I assumed it was about some kind of cloud or other free hosting/email/social networking/whatever service that all the kids these days put their stuff on without keeping a local copy shutting down. Then I saw the title and assumed Instagram was shutting down. Seemed like a good analogy to me. Well, except that free hosting services invited you to put crap in their garage and they make money from it somehow, so you're a bit less of a dick than the person leaving stuff in Chad's garage, but if the service is shutting down then they're probably not making enough money to pay for the garage.

Going by BAReFOOt's comments, I guess Instagram is making money from pictures rather than shutting down, and if that's what it's about then the analogy is not quite as good, but it's still a great comic if you don't happen to know that specific context.
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

piki
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:08 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby piki » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:16 am UTC

Viltris wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:So the analogy in this comic is completely invalid nonsense! Which should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when Instagram “sells” “your” information (pictures), you still have them, while when Chad (actually) sells you physical objects (stuff), it is gone.

What the fuck, Randall?


I think you're completely missing the point. The point of the comic is that people are overreacting to the whole Instagram fiasco. It sounds like the point you're trying to make is that people are overreacting to the whole Instagram fiasco. Granted, you both take different paths to reach the same conclusion, but it sounds like you and Randall actually agree on this.


This is complete and utter nonsense! Point of the comic is: people are overreacting to the whole Instagram fiasco! :wink:

As every analogy, if you want, you can find an aspect that doesn't make sense for original thing. It doesn't matter if real stuff is gone after sell and instagram photos are still there. Point is that Chad is trying to make money off your stuff and you are outraged by this.

Google has spoiled us all. It gives so much stuff for free that we accept is as a rule, and expect it can (and should) work everywhere.

grlira
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:27 am UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby grlira » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:31 am UTC

After all the serious(TM) posts, I'm going to say the subversive thing: I really want to put some drugs in Chad's garage and see him try to sell that. He might even make a few bucks off of it.

That said, I have never used Instagram and am not even slightly affected by this whole thing.

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby flicky1991 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:44 am UTC

I had no idea what the connection was between the strip and the title until I came here...
any pronouns
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

Wooloomooloo
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:05 am UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Wooloomooloo » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:49 am UTC

piki wrote:Google has spoiled us all. It gives so much stuff for free that we accept is as a rule, and expect it can (and should) work everywhere.

Nonsense. Google did not invent free search. Google did not invent free email. Google did not invent free web hosting. Those actually used to be the norm on the internet even more so that they are today. I guess they just didn't work out quite as well for everybody as they were hoping.

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Sprocket » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:52 am UTC

I've never used Instagram,
but I bet Chad never said "dude, I've got this great new garage, it's a great place for you and your friends to come put things, so you can show your friends the cool stuff you have. You should use it, let me show you all these great features it has!"
Before he put up that note.
Last edited by Sprocket on Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:03 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
Tualha
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:18 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Tualha » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:57 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:There is a huge fallacy in that comic, that is just like going to the north pole, and then at that exact place, saying “I will now go north!”:
Just like the above statement in that context, saying “property” in the context of information makes no sense. It is not related to reality.
In reality, there is no such thing as “intellectual property”. It is physically meaningless/impossible nonsense.

The organized crime (Content Mafia) did spread that FUD and bullshit anyway. Please stop living in their perverse delusional world. It harms all creative people, including you.

A little hint: It was not “your” information from the moment on where you uploaded it to the Internet or gave it to anyone else via any other means. That was the point where your control over it ended, and where it stopped to be under the control of just one individual. It was also the point where you started to be able to prove that that information even existed in the first place.

Such differences between the laws information has to adhere to and those that matter/energy has to adhere to, are the reason why information is not a physical good, and can never be “owned”, “stolen”, “rented”, or anything like that.

So the analogy in this comic is completely invalid nonsense! Which should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when Instagram “sells” “your” information (pictures), you still have them, while when Chad (actually) sells you physical objects (stuff), it is gone.

What the fuck, Randall?

BAReFOOt, you're being absurdly dogmatic. Any kind of property only exists in people's minds and in a societal context. That's as true of the computer I'm typing this on as it is of the software it's running. And in social reality, there is indeed such a thing as intellectual property, and this has been true at least as long as patents and copyrights have existed. You evidently disagree with and dislike this, but that doesn't make it false.

Go ahead, tell a judge that a movie ceased to belong to the company that produced it the moment they made it publicly available. You really think they'll entertain that notion for more than a moment? Even the GPL depends on copyright laws for enforcement.

piki
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:08 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby piki » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:00 am UTC

Wooloomooloo wrote:
piki wrote:Google has spoiled us all. It gives so much stuff for free that we accept is as a rule, and expect it can (and should) work everywhere.

Nonsense. Google did not invent free search. Google did not invent free email. Google did not invent free web hosting. Those actually used to be the norm on the internet even more so that they are today. I guess they just didn't work out quite as well for everybody as they were hoping.


Of course it didn't, never said that. It's just that it obviously works for them so we expect that to work almost everywhere else.

Actually, whenever I use some free service that I like I sometimes feel uneasy and worry how will they survive. A actively hope they will find a way. I don't mind changes but I expect them not to be obtrusive. I'm spoiled too...

User avatar
Tualha
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:18 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Tualha » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:03 am UTC

Given that Randall also wrote this:

http://xkcd.com/743/

I don't think his point is that people are overreacting, but rather that people were foolish to think that companies like Instagram would continue to provide a free service forever, without ever trying to exploit their users. You know what they say: if you're not paying for the service, then you're not the customer, you're the product.

Some cogent thoughts from Schneier on the general subject:

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1212.html#1

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Sockmonkey » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:06 am UTC

Sprocket wrote:I've never used Instagram, but I bet Chad never said "dude, I've got this great new garage, it's a great place for you and your friends to come put things, so you can show your friends the cool stuff you have. You should use it, let me show you all these great features it has!" Before he put up that note.

This right here. I'd agree with the comic if the various "free" hosting and messaging services didn't specifically count on and contribute to people making that mstake. The white noise of the ads for them combined with the wordy legalese pretty much ensures that's what happens.
Boo hoo, people are mad at you because you didn't live up to the false impression you went out of your way to give them.
Tualha wrote:I don't think his point is that people are overreacting, but rather that people were foolish to think that companies like Instagram would continue to provide a free service forever, without ever trying to exploit their users. You know what they say: if you're not paying for the service, then you're not the customer, you're the product.
Fair enough, but that's not the message the comic is sending. It's presenting the guy keeping his stuff in Chad's garage as an asshole for even wanting to store stuff inthe first place.

thesilv3r
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:33 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby thesilv3r » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:30 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:
Lukeonia1 wrote:I thought of mentioning that Chad pays for his garage by putting ads on the shelves, but then I looked it up and discovered Chad has no income. Guess I can't blame him for wanting to CL all that dude's stuff.


So you are saying that when some complete idiot created an utterly impossible business model that can never work in reality, and he therefore fails in every aspect, to sustain his business, that that makes it acceptable for you that he switches to a criminal business model?


So you're saying that intellectual property doesn't exist, then saying Instagram is a criminal for selling information to interested advertising parties. Even if we take your assumption that IP should not be restricted, Instagram is still increasing the efficiency of the system (by linking supply with demand, much like banks [traditionally] link savers and borrowers) and therefore it shouldn't seem wrong to seek compensation for providing this service.

Deceiving people in order to profit is wrong though. Well generally its wrong, there are most likely some exceptions.

piki
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:08 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby piki » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:37 am UTC

Sockmonkey wrote:It's presenting the guy keeping his stuff in Chad's garage as an asshole for even wanting to store stuff in the first place.

I don't see it that way. It's just presenting the guy as naive - expecting that Chad's or any other garage would ever keep his stuff totally for free (and indefinitely long).

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:48 am UTC

The point is that both Chad and Instagram must profit off the things stored, not off the service of storing them itself. This should be apparent, as the service is free.

If you want the analogy to be more "accurate", then consider that while the assets Chad was selling were physical items, the assets Instagram is selling are viewership/usage rights (by putting images initially guaranteed a small degree of privacy in new contexts).

User avatar
TimXCampbell
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:26 am UTC
Location: Very Eastern Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby TimXCampbell » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:58 am UTC

Tualha wrote:BAReFOOt, you're being absurdly dogmatic. Any kind of property only exists in people's minds and in a societal context. .... [Try to] tell a judge that a movie ceased to belong to the company that produced it the moment they made it publicly available.

Context is a factor! Ownership is an agreement; It doesn't create a physical change in the thing owned. And if the thing “owned” can be digitally copied it can be “stolen” without anybody but the “thief” knowing! Weird, huh? The “thief” has decided to not agree, reasoning that nobody is getting hurt. Is that ever true, though?

Do you remember the ad campaigns “Don't copy that floppy?” They were so self-righteous that I started inventing arguments that software piracy (which I renamed “software proliferation”) was sometimes a good thing. Just one example: Lotus 1-2-3 was the top spreadsheet for years because it had been proliferated so much. It became the de facto standard because of piracy. Weird, huh?

I actually do pay for the commercial software I use. I like to tell myself I'm honest and fair. And now, let me ask everybody something:

There are scripts that let you block the ads on Facebook and elsewhere. Do you block them? Or do you reason that you're getting the service for free so you must not block the ads? There are zero legal repercussions if you block them, just your conscience. To block or not to block?

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Sockmonkey » Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:17 am UTC

TimXCampbell wrote:There are scripts that let you block the ads on Facebook and elsewhere. Do you block them? Or do you reason that you're getting the service for free so you must not block the ads? There are zero legal repercussions if you block them, just your conscience. To block or not to block?

If an ad is an animated flash commercial that starts automatically and slows down the loading of the actual content while startling the crap out of me if I happened to have my speakers on I block the shit out of it. If it's a basic banner ad I don't. Generally I'll just stick to sites where the ads aren't that annoying in the first place.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby blowfishhootie » Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:41 am UTC

The reason this is a stupid analogy has nothing to do with the conceptualization of property. We are not privy to the specific conversation the person had with Chad, of course, but I'm guessing it didn't go like this:

Chad: Hey, you can store stuff in my garage indefinitely if you want to. (No mention of selling it.)
Guy in Comic: OK!
...
Chad: Hey, I'm going to sell all that stuff you store in my garage.

If that IS how the conversation went, then Chad IS being a dick. Being, uh, "generous" at the beginning doesn't mean it's not a dick move later. And even "generous" is a pretty ridiculous word to use; I don't use Instagram and kind of hate it for convincing people who are terrible at taking photos that they are actually good at taking photos, but I'm going to assume that Instagram is already somehow making money off people uploading shit to their site, without selling content. If not, that's a pretty poor business model.

Instagram is unilaterally deciding to change the nature of a relationship that required both sides' consent to enter. They presumably have the right to do that, but that still doesn't mean it's not a dick move. Sites, such as Facebook, that feel the need to update their privacy policy often are pretty shitty for this very reason. If they're not trying to take advantage of users, then what was wrong with the existing policy?

piki
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:08 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby piki » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:04 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:Being, uh, "generous" at the beginning doesn't mean it's not a dick move later.

I don't think comic is on the Chad's side either. It's just Chad being Chad - sweet in the beginning to be able to take advantages later on...
Comic is just more focused on people not seeing it (for the n'th time) at start.

arthurd006_5
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby arthurd006_5 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:15 pm UTC

Sockmonkey wrote:
TimXCampbell wrote:There are scripts that let you block the ads on Facebook and elsewhere. Do you block them? Or do you reason that you're getting the service for free so you must not block the ads? There are zero legal repercussions if you block them, just your conscience. To block or not to block?

If an ad is an animated flash commercial that starts automatically and slows down the loading of the actual content while startling the crap out of me if I happened to have my speakers on I block the shit out of it. If it's a basic banner ad I don't. Generally I'll just stick to sites where the ads aren't that annoying in the first place.

I didn't block ads until my computer started barking like a dog without warning, often in the university library, where it was completely inappropriate, and the complain-about-this-ad link resulted in complete non-comprehension by the relevant web-site.

I now block them in a completely non-standard way, that probably looks to the provider a lot like a fault.

I'm deciding whether to donate money to a particular web-site, to compensate for the blocked ads, but I also hate credit cards, so the transaction costs will be fairly large.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby blowfishhootie » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:19 pm UTC

piki wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:Being, uh, "generous" at the beginning doesn't mean it's not a dick move later.

I don't think comic is on the Chad's side either. It's just Chad being Chad - sweet in the beginning to be able to take advantages later on...
Comic is just more focused on people not seeing it (for the n'th time) at start.


Well I agree that people are stupid for being shocked and appalled over and over again when Web services pull this stunt. But the comic's definition of what constitutes a business seems like a thinly veiled (and definition-stretching) justification of Chad's/Instagram's actions. But maybe it is a correct justification afterall. I said in my first post that presumably Instagram was making money somehow without selling content, but that might not be true. Here's the first link that came up when I put "How does Instagram make money?" into Google:

http://www.businessinsider.com/instagram-finances-2012-8

At a hearing in San Francisco where California regulators were deciding on whether to allow Facebook's acquisition of Instagram to go ahead, Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom gave an overview of the company's finances.

In its two years of existence, he said, Instagram had run up $2.7 million in losses. Before it raised $50 million in its most recent round of financing in March, at a valuation that Systrom said was "just south of $500 million," the company had $5 million in the bank.

That's most of the $7.5 million it had previously raised.

An officer of the Department of Corporations asked Systrom how Instagram made money.

"That's a great question," said Systrom. "We do not."

Instagram had considered various means of making money but "nothing came of it," Systrom explained.


This leaves a lot unexplained though. Where did that $50 million come from? Does financing here mean like, took out loans against its valuation? It certainly sounds like it operates at a loss, which changes my opinion a little.

PFD Studio
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:05 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby PFD Studio » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:35 pm UTC

This is a TERRIBLE analogy. It would be closer if Chad had said "Hey, come put your stuff in my garage! It's free and everyone can see it." And later, Chad decided to sell everything.

Solarn
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:27 am UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Solarn » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:44 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:There is a huge fallacy in that comic, that is just like going to the north pole, and then at that exact place, saying “I will now go north!”:
Just like the above statement in that context, saying “property” in the context of information makes no sense. It is not related to reality.
In reality, there is no such thing as “intellectual property”. It is physically meaningless/impossible nonsense.

The organized crime (Content Mafia) did spread that FUD and bullshit anyway. Please stop living in their perverse delusional world. It harms all creative people, including you.

A little hint: It was not “your” information from the moment on where you uploaded it to the Internet or gave it to anyone else via any other means. That was the point where your control over it ended, and where it stopped to be under the control of just one individual. It was also the point where you started to be able to prove that that information even existed in the first place.

Such differences between the laws information has to adhere to and those that matter/energy has to adhere to, are the reason why information is not a physical good, and can never be “owned”, “stolen”, “rented”, or anything like that.

So the analogy in this comic is completely invalid nonsense! Which should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when Instagram “sells” “your” information (pictures), you still have them, while when Chad (actually) sells you physical objects (stuff), it is gone.

What the fuck, Randall?

I'm tempted to start using your online identity and claim everything you have ever created for my own just to see how long you can hold this ridiculous position.

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby Angelastic » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:56 pm UTC

I wish I hadn't read this thread. I liked the comic a whole lot more when I thought it was about people complaining about free hosting sites shutting down.
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

User avatar
boXd
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:05 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby boXd » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:58 pm UTC

I thought the comic was a funny analogy that aptly demonstrated the naivity of everyone who used Instagram and are outraged about its new policy. (Not, as some people seem to think, whether it is *right* for Instagram or Chad or whoever to do such a thing. I don't care much about that.) The responses on this thread are even funnier.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby blowfishhootie » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:06 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:I wish I hadn't read this thread. I liked the comic a whole lot more when I thought it was about people complaining about free hosting sites shutting down.


Did you not read the title? Or were you under the impression that Instagram is going away?

User avatar
WolfieMario
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:45 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby WolfieMario » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:19 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:There is a huge fallacy in that comic, that is just like going to the north pole, and then at that exact place, saying “I will now go north!”:
Just like the above statement in that context, saying “property” in the context of information makes no sense. It is not related to reality.
In reality, there is no such thing as “intellectual property”. It is physically meaningless/impossible nonsense.

The organized crime (Content Mafia) did spread that FUD and bullshit anyway. Please stop living in their perverse delusional world. It harms all creative people, including you.

A little hint: It was not “your” information from the moment on where you uploaded it to the Internet or gave it to anyone else via any other means. That was the point where your control over it ended, and where it stopped to be under the control of just one individual. It was also the point where you started to be able to prove that that information even existed in the first place.

Such differences between the laws information has to adhere to and those that matter/energy has to adhere to, are the reason why information is not a physical good, and can never be “owned”, “stolen”, “rented”, or anything like that.

So the analogy in this comic is completely invalid nonsense! Which should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when Instagram “sells” “your” information (pictures), you still have them, while when Chad (actually) sells you physical objects (stuff), it is gone.

What the fuck, Randall?

The strangest thing is, I agree with most of the ideas in your post, and yet your wording seriously makes me want to not. You catch more flies with honey than tinfoil hats - I think you're going over the top here, and that's not going to convince anybody to change their opinions to something closer to yours. Sorry, I just felt the need to say this - I don't actually mean to offend you if I have.
"Sometimes game development isn't about doing what is nice to everyone all the time." - Jens Bergensten

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby PolakoVoador » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:32 pm UTC

WolfieMario wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:There is a huge fallacy in that comic, that is just like going to the north pole, and then at that exact place, saying “I will now go north!”:
Just like the above statement in that context, saying “property” in the context of information makes no sense. It is not related to reality.
In reality, there is no such thing as “intellectual property”. It is physically meaningless/impossible nonsense.

The organized crime (Content Mafia) did spread that FUD and bullshit anyway. Please stop living in their perverse delusional world. It harms all creative people, including you.

A little hint: It was not “your” information from the moment on where you uploaded it to the Internet or gave it to anyone else via any other means. That was the point where your control over it ended, and where it stopped to be under the control of just one individual. It was also the point where you started to be able to prove that that information even existed in the first place.

Such differences between the laws information has to adhere to and those that matter/energy has to adhere to, are the reason why information is not a physical good, and can never be “owned”, “stolen”, “rented”, or anything like that.

So the analogy in this comic is completely invalid nonsense! Which should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when Instagram “sells” “your” information (pictures), you still have them, while when Chad (actually) sells you physical objects (stuff), it is gone.

What the fuck, Randall?

The strangest thing is, I agree with most of the ideas in your post, and yet your wording seriously makes me want to not. You catch more flies with honey than tinfoil hats - I think you're going over the top here, and that's not going to convince anybody to change their opinions to something closer to yours. Sorry, I just felt the need to say this - I don't actually mean to offend you if I have.


This seems to be the only form of communication he is capable of.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby mathmannix » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:41 pm UTC

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is here. Like others, I didn't see any connection between the funny comic and its title before I came here, but I think I get it now... what I have gathered from Wikipedia and this forum is that Instagram is a free place to post pictures, like Facebook or (I think - I haven't used) Flickr, only now it's still going to be free, but will sell your pictures to other people.*** Kind of creepy, but people really shouldn't be putting any pictures on the internet that they don't want future potential bosses or their children to see one day. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy. Obviously it should be limited to not including teenagers (who don't have the grasp of consequences that adults have) that might be posting mirror shots and "sexting" their friends, because then this company would be in the child porn market, and I don't care what people say, but I am against child pornography, that's right I said it.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

*** - Oh, and Wikipedia hints that they might not be going through with this after all due to the negative feedback.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby blowfishhootie » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:59 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:I'm not exactly sure what the problem is here. Like others, I didn't see any connection between the funny comic and its title before I came here, but I think I get it now... what I have gathered from Wikipedia and this forum is that Instagram is a free place to post pictures, like Facebook


It's a bit more than that, but this is basically correct. Instagram is site (and app) that lets you take a photo, apply some automated filters to it so you can pretend it is artistic, and then automatically spam your Facebook friends' newsfeeds with your faux artistic ability. Also, it is owned by Facebook.

only now it's still going to be free, but will sell your pictures to other people.***


You are right that the backlash has made them, for now, scrap the plan. I'm sure it will be back.

Kind of creepy, but people really shouldn't be putting any pictures on the internet that they don't want future potential bosses or their children to see one day.


As if that's the only reason someone might be bothered by this? Web sites such as Facebook (I haven't seen Instagram's) bring these changes upon users with the only notice being an update to a long, legal mumbo jumbo privacy policy that most people don't read or would struggle to understand if they did ... you don't think people have a right to be annoyed by that? Or the fact that Instagram is unilaterally changing the nature of a two-way relationship? It's not only about embarrassing drunken photos your boss may see. In fact, I have not seen that complain brought up one single time in this debate. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. You have to be 13 to use Facebook, right? How many 13 year olds do you think could read through and understand Facebook's privacy policy? There's no reason for these companies not to provide a more straightforward summary of their policies, if the goal is for the policy to be fair to and understood by all.

There's no reasonable expectation of privacy. Obviously it should be limited to not including teenagers (who don't have the grasp of consequences that adults have)


Wait, what? Which is it? If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then minors should not be allowed to use these services at all, because companies would not be able to guarantee the things you warn against wouldn't be happening. If the companies CAN but then just choose not to - which is the implication of your distinction here - then there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy, and companies are choosing to ignore it. That's what your comment says to me, anyway.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby mathmannix » Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:07 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
mathmannix wrote:There's no reasonable expectation of privacy. Obviously it should be limited to not including teenagers (who don't have the grasp of consequences that adults have)


Wait, what? Which is it? If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then minors should not be allowed to use these services at all, because companies would not be able to guarantee the things you warn against wouldn't be happening. If the companies CAN but then just choose not to - which is the implication of your distinction here - then there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy, and companies are choosing to ignore it. That's what your comment says to me, anyway.


That was my intent - either don't allow anybody to post graphic/nude pictures (which is my understanding of facebook anyway) or don't allow minors on the website. (That's the responsible thing for a company to do, and there are probably laws out there that enforce them, but if not, then the company doesn't HAVE to do this and people just have to be more careful.)

But once you give a company pictures you took, and presumably clicked on some button giving them ownership thereof (or making said ownership public domain), they can do whatever they want to with the pictures, unless they are thereby breaking another law (including but not limited to child pornography, slander, or blackmail.)
Last edited by mathmannix on Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:09 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

jjcote
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:16 am UTC

Re: 1150: Instagram

Postby jjcote » Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:08 pm UTC

Another thing to consider it what it means to own something at all. What does that entitle you to? If you own a house, maybe somebody will charge money to take tourists down your street on a bus and point it out to them. In Beverly Hills, that happens, right? But what if you bought some land and found people actually wandering across your property, and arranging sporting events there? Seems like that would be outrageous. But it's completely normal in Scandinavia. Keeping people away is not one of the privileges of land ownership in their legal system, everyone is allowed to wander wherever they like (with a few exceptions like secure military installations, and if you camp somewhere, you have to pack up your tent and move after a few days).

Maybe the analogy would have been better if Chad had just been renting out your stuff to people who would bring it back to the garage, so that it would still be there when you came by. But whatever, close enough.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 39 guests