Yes, this backlash from users is exactly what's happening. You can't simultaneously try to dissuade the backlash from happening and depend on it to prevent the undesirable events from taking place.
>Yes, this backlash from users is exactly what's happening. You can't simultaneously try to dissuade the backlash from happening and depend on it to prevent the undesirable events from taking place.
No, but I CAN and AM expecting people participating in the backlash:
a) NOT to behave like it's the first time they are seeing this
b) NOT to behave like this move was intended as perceived, and
c) NOT to behave like this wont be reverted pronto.
And I expect this especially from internet savvy people like Wheaton, who have seen this play out tens of times on the nets with similar licence changes...
Had Wheaton written something like "I'm sure this is another one of countless examples of ill-thought and quickly reverted license changes" I would be totally OK.
The way it is now, it's like someone writing "Oh, my god, Charlie Brown was tricked again by Lucy, I don't believe it!!!!" for paragraph after paragraph.
Not to mention that I also presented several other reasons besides the backlash why this is a non-story (for one, it's inconceivable as a business move, when a competitor, Twitter, just turned on "kill mode", second it doesn't make sense as a monetization tactic, it's not like hipster filtered photos are a stock photo favorite, or stock photography itself is a large market).
Instagram would have closed shop the very first day it actually ATTEMPTED to sell a user photo without his permission.
Plus, I addressed this very question in my reply already. Not to mention that my first comment have several ADDITIONAL reasons why this is not actually happening.
CNN and other media outlets report that Facebook reverted their TOS update and went back to using the previous one. 'The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
Are you? Citing one situation where they pulled back doesn't account for all of the endless updates they made against people's wishes, most recently that whole thing where they don't give users a choice anymore at all.
>Are you? Citing one situation where they pulled back doesn't account for all of the endless updates they made against people's wishes, most recently that whole thing where they don't give users a choice anymore at all.
What "users wishes"? Some people will always complain for anything.
It only matters when large volumes of users protest. Some guy in rural Montana not liking some Facebook policy doesn't mean FB will change it.
In this case the MAJORITY of the people are using Facebook as they did before, and have no problem with any changes.
Not the same case with Instagram, where the change has to do with the core (and basically only) feature of the service, uploading your photos.
Yes, this backlash from users is exactly what's happening. You can't simultaneously try to dissuade the backlash from happening and depend on it to prevent the undesirable events from taking place.