<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Instagram rephrases	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://sorrywatch.com/instagram-rephrases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://sorrywatch.com/instagram-rephrases/</link>
	<description>Analyzing apologies in the news, media, history and literature. We condemn the bad and exalt the good.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2020 00:59:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Breaking News: There Is No Santa Claus / realeyz		</title>
		<link>https://sorrywatch.com/instagram-rephrases/#comment-1056</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Breaking News: There Is No Santa Claus / realeyz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:08:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sorrywatch.com/?p=710#comment-1056</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] And thus it was that Instagram announced that it was going to be taking your pictures, which they were hosting for free, and maybe use them in ads with no compensation to the photographer and no notice that they were being used. Were I an Instagram user, I might find my fish soup adorning an ad for Les Terrasses du Port on Facebook! Quelle horreur! And someone (the restaurant, presumably) would pay Instagram for the photo and I wouldn&#039;t see a nickel. Those of us with long memories remember that Facebook either did or didn&#039;t try something like this in the past (rumors sweeping around Facebook being what they are) and there was an identical uproar. Eventually, Instagram issued a couple of statements, which sort of boiled down to saying they really had no intention of doing this yet, and they&#039;d tell everyone when and if they decided to do it. (All of this was well-reported at the wonderful Sorrywatch site, your one-stop shopping site for contrition of all sorts, including faux, most notably in this post and then this post). [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] And thus it was that Instagram announced that it was going to be taking your pictures, which they were hosting for free, and maybe use them in ads with no compensation to the photographer and no notice that they were being used. Were I an Instagram user, I might find my fish soup adorning an ad for Les Terrasses du Port on Facebook! Quelle horreur! And someone (the restaurant, presumably) would pay Instagram for the photo and I wouldn&#039;t see a nickel. Those of us with long memories remember that Facebook either did or didn&#039;t try something like this in the past (rumors sweeping around Facebook being what they are) and there was an identical uproar. Eventually, Instagram issued a couple of statements, which sort of boiled down to saying they really had no intention of doing this yet, and they&#039;d tell everyone when and if they decided to do it. (All of this was well-reported at the wonderful Sorrywatch site, your one-stop shopping site for contrition of all sorts, including faux, most notably in this post and then this post). [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
