34 votes

Instragram Loses 25% of All Users in Aftermath of Privacy Rule Change

Instagram users outraged over new rules made good on their threat to dump the popular photo-sharing app.

The app, which Facebook acquired for $1 billion earlier this year, may have shed nearly a quarter of its daily active users in the wake of the debacle, according to figures from AppData.

“[We are] pretty sure the decline in Instagram users was due to the terms of service announcement” on Dec. 17, AppData told The Post.

Instagram, which peaked at 16.4 million active daily users the week it rolled out its policy change, had fallen to 12.4 million as of yesterday, according to the data.

Last week, Instagram changed its terms of service to pave the way for advertising.

The new language would have allowed the company to sell user photos for advertising and promotions “without any compensation to you.”


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great News

These companies will only pay attention if it hits them financially. I'd like to see the same happen to Verizon for them listening in on people's calls (or least creating the ability for themselves to do so).



...Verizon also disclosed that the FBI, using administrative subpoenas, sought information identifying not just a person making a call, but all the people that customer called, as well as the people those people called. Verizon does not keep data on this "two-generation community of interest" for customers, but the request highlights the broad reach of the government's quest for data.

The disclosures, in a letter from Verizon to three Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigating the carriers' participation in government surveillance programs, demonstrated the willingness of telecom companies to comply with government requests for data, even, at times, without traditional legal supporting documents. The committee members also got letters from AT&T and Qwest Communications International, but those letters did not provide details on customer data given to the government. None of the three carriers gave details on any classified government surveillance program.

Read the rest at the URL:



Now boycott Facespy GoogleTube and Microsloth too

Facespy is censoring liberty
Google is spying for NSA
YouTube is censoring
Microsloth is a fundraising arm of Gates Eugenics

Consumer Revolt //// GLOBAL STRIKE


Let's assume your photo was given to a company marketing a new herpes drug. The advertisement reads "new drug helps herpes sufferers." Your picture is at the top of the advertisement (you don't have herpes).

Can you sue? Yes.

Here are the old TOS that are

Here are the old TOS that are currently active:

The old terms allow Instagram to "use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate" your photos and distribute them "in any media formats through any media channels.

"With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past." ~ Aaron Swartz

Instagram Didn't Really Lose 25% Of Its Users

Not according to this article, anyway:


But I'll never use them. Facebook is always trying to pull some sneaky ass shit.

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

My understanding of the

My understanding of the situation is that the legal wording of the Terms of Service scared people. In reality, the original Terms of Service were broader and just as far reaching. Instagram could basically do anything with your photos before being acquired by Facebook. These new TOS were just worded differently and specifically for Facebook.

Most start-ups have very broad TOS to modify as they grow and change directions. Who reads the TOS? Did you know Apple can delete your objectionable data from the cloud? However, Apple does not define what is objectionable to them.

No Legalese should be used in the TOS. Only specific, clear and honest explanations of the use of our data will prevent another exodus in the future.

By the way, Psi Gangham Style, made 8.1 million dollars on Youtube. And that includes the kickbacks he made from all the covers of his song.

"With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past." ~ Aaron Swartz

More concern over Instagram invading privacy then

how much our government invades our privacy. The mainstream media can blast how instgram/facebook etc. is changing privacy policies. But when it comes to government changes in the same policies most become silent. You see posts and tweets how people are upset with these changes, yet people who ring the bell that our whole lives are being tracked get little response. What's the difference? Is it because social media is more of an immediate effect, while the governments is behind closed doors? Or maybe the question is how do we get people to see the immediate effect of the privacy invasions from our government?