Responding to a maelstrom of criticism, Instagram announced today that they plan to withdraw the proposed Terms of Use changes that sparked outrage across the internet yesterday. According to co-founder Kevin Systrom, Instagram never had any intent to monetize user photos without fairly compensating the photographer, and they are working to revise the TOU wording in a manner that is less confusing and less likely to start a another protest/boycott. Ironically, other sources have pointed out that the outrage was ill-informed at the start, and as things are wont to do on the Internet, spun out of control, perhaps unfairly so for Instagram.
It would seem that Instagram has always had the right (according to their current TOU) to monetize your content, and that the withdrawn change actually narrowed the rather broad terms users agreed to previously. I’d publish a full mea culpa on this, but the point of my previous article was more to point out the icky terms governing the use of photos that contain minors, as well as the very vague terms that assume minors are using Instagram with implicit parental consent. I understand it’s hard to police the use of free apps, especially when parents are noticeably absent with respect to knowing what their kids are doing on their personal media devices, but that seems like a cop out.
What this means for you:
My stance on the exploitation of minors for profit still stands: It’s icky. If you are a company like Instagram that is bound to feature content containing images of minors, you need to be much more careful how you glad-handle parents. As for jumping on the rage bandwagon yesterday:
Dear Instagram,
I’m sorry for assuming you suddenly became evil. You aren’t evil, but maybe you were too cavalier with your current Terms of Use, and you let too much of your Facebook allegiance shine through in your proposed changes. Please don’t be icky, and please don’t treat your users like a prize crop, even though they may act exactly as that. I’m sorry I didn’t take the time to read your lengthy and lawyered-up TOU to find out the truth that you had us by the throat from the get go, and I’m even more sorry that we willingly (through our own ignorance/apathy) let you.
Last week, Facebook opened up a vote on its usage and terms policies that included in the changes the removal of user pivilege of voting on future changes to said policy. In order for the user vote to be binding, 30% of Facebook’s user population (approximately 300 million users) needed to cast a vote in either direction. In the “Surprising No One” column, only 700,000 votes were cast (about .06% of the total population), and even though the vote was overwhelmingly against the changes, Facebook only needs to take that result under advisement, in other words, “Thanks for your opinion, we’ll do what we want.”
What this means for you:
Most of Facebook’s user base probably had no idea they had any influence over the policies that affect how they use, and are used by, Facebook, who went so far as to notify everyone about the upcoming vote via email. Even though they provided an easy to use link, an even easier to use app to vote (you didn’t even need to leave the confines of Facebook!), most of the world couldn’t be bothered to care about this change. It’s true, as mentioned in my previous article on this, Facebook allowing its userbase to weigh in on policy change is extremely unusual. As a result of the lack of interest, Facebook will become like the thousands of other internet companies who make changes to their terms of use without asking their users permission, and internet citizen self-governance takes another step backwards in favor of convenience and “free” services.
Facebook is taking a less than transparent approach in its latest governance vote by asking users approve changes to their usage and terms policies that revokes the privilege to vote on future changes to that usage and terms policy. The questionable part is that they are burying that change in the monstrous pile of legalese that is the overall “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” and “Data Use Policy”.
Are they hoping that no one is paying attention and will happily vote away their ability to provide input on future changes? If typical human behavior demonstrated in skipping past the “fine print” is any indication, they would have been mostly right. However there are still plenty of digital activists and internet watchdogs scrutinizing Facebook. Their eagle eyes have spotted the change and got the mainstream media to splash it all over the internet.
What this means for you:
If you don’t use Facebook, you can’t vote. If you do use Facebook, you should go vote and let Zuckerberg et al. know that you care about your digital rights and want to have a say. Unless 30% of the Facebook population show up to vote, Facebook only has to take the decision (regardless “yea” or “nay”) as “advisory” and will adopt the new changes, removing your ability to vote on future changes. The fact that Facebook allows a vote at all is a bit of a rarity in the internet service realm, and countless legal arguments have surfaced over whether “Terms of Use” policies that many of us blithely click “I Agree” to in order to get to the good parts are even enforceable. But don’t let that lead you to an apathetic stance – Facebook’s position as the largest digital consumer service in the world puts it in the limelight for security and user rights, and as such, it should be trying to empower its users, not abrogate their freedoms.