Facebook has plans to monetize Instagram. We’re not surprised by that, not in the least because it needs to somehow turn its $1 billion Instagram…
Facebook-owned Instagram recently updated the terms of service (ToS) for its users, and they’re pretty wild. The social network’s new powers run the gamut from…
Is it right?
Well, look, it’s no secret that what you post online is never really private. Don’t post things online if you don’t want them viewed by strangers or consumed by huge corporations looking to boost revenue. Instagram sees your concerns, however, and recently tweeted that it will address them soon.
Here’s the exact tweet, posted earlier today:
We’ll let you know what Instagram and Facebook have to say as soon as we hear more. In the meantime, you may want to read the new ToS for yourselves.
Update: That was fast, Instagram has already published its update. Here’s a bit from what the company had to say:
I’m writing this today to let you know we’re listening and to commit to you that we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion. As we review your feedback and stories in the press, we’re going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos.
Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period.
The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. Our main goal is to avoid things likes advertising banners you see in other apps that would hurt the Instagram user experience. Instead, we want to create meaningful ways to help you discover new and interesting accounts and content while building a self-sustaining business at the same time.
The company also said that nothing has changed in relationship to user privacy. We appreciate the response, but are still a bit boggled as to why the original ToS seemed to suggest the opposite of what the company just said in the above statements. Here’s a link to the full explanation.