Facebook and Instagram have both hinted at plans to incorporate advertisements into Instagram’s application, although they have declined to provide details about how and when ads would be deployed. These freshly drafted terms give the first glimpse of what the companies might have planned. Here’s a quick rundown of what the new terms, the most significant changes in Instagram’s short history, could mean for users.
Bit of griping on Twitter today about this, questioning the value of continuing accounts under such terms.
A heart that’s full up like a landfill
A job that slowly kills you
Bruises that won’t heal
“No Surprises” by Radiohead, live from the Santa Barbara Bowl in 2008.
Here’s some live Radiohead to breakup your Monday night blues.
Daily chart: booze, bonks and bodies. The various Bonds are more different than you think. Pierce Brosnan was the most bloodthirsty, bumping off around 19 baddies per film. George Lazenby was the Bond for the babes, whereas Daniel Craig is notably less successful with the ladies. Maybe that’s because he drinks the most martinis.
Like I always* say, Lazenby FTW.
*I have said this twice.
[Reddit] has resisted calls to ban the forums of illicit photographs of women taken without their consent, positioning itself as a protector of free speech. But Ms. Tufekci says that those running Reddit are twisting the logic behind that notion because the free speech referenced in this case refers to images of women, often underage girls, taken without their consent, and passed around for pleasure. It is different from, say, someone speaking out about an oppressive government or even hate speech, as unpleasant as it is.
“At a certain point,” she said, “they have to choose morals over traffic.”
Reddit did not respond with comment in time for publication. While the original forum was banned, others have popped up under different names.
The challenge for communities like Reddit — as well as for Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr and others that have to decide how to regulate the materials passed around their virtual corridors, is to figure out how to please all their members, without driving some of them away. And one has to look only at the previous glory of social giants like Myspace, Friendster and Digg, and at how rarely they are currently mentioned, to understand how fragile the line is between life and death for a site.
Ken of Popehat takes a particular interest—both lawyerly and as an internet citizen—in the philosophic stances of Reddit, its communities, Gawker and the outed troll. His questions about internet anonymity are questions we should all share.
From Ken’s initial post, where he details his concerns:
Private Is Not the Same As Public: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the actions of the government. It does not limit the actions of private individuals. If you’re an ass on the internet, and a journalist (or “journalist”) or angry nutball researches the traces you’ve left on the internet and reveals your true identity, your First Amendment rights have not been violated.
Though law is always slow to catch up to technology, there are gradually emerging legal norms limiting the ability of the government and the courts to use official compulsion to reveal your identity. That’s a good thing, even if the doctrine is developing too slowly, particularly when it’s law enforcement demanding the information. But there’s no coherent legal theory preventing private individuals from outing you based on what you’ve revealed online.
Wish I had this clear of a thought on my COM Law midterm; solid explanation.