Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
The title text notes two flaws in the logic of disgruntled Instagram users. You cannot accuse Instagram of stealing because it was you who gave them the images in the first place, and it is irresponsible to assume that this will not happen if you give your photos to another social networking company.
Craigslist is a website where individuals can contact others interested in buying or selling goods. As a verb, it means to sell something on Craigslist.
- [Cueball and a friend. Friend is at a computer.]
- Cueball: I've been putting all my stuff in Chad's garage.
- Cueball: He has nice shelves.
- Cueball: And he lets me in to see it whenever I want.
- But I got this note from him:
- Note: Dude
- Note: In like a month im gonna Craigslist all that shit you left in my garage
- Note: Just FYI
- Note: -Chad
- Cueball: It's an outrage! This is no way to run a storage business!
- Friend: Are you paying him to look after your stuff?
add a comment!
- Cueball: No.
- Friend: Then what he runs isn't a storage business.
- Cueball: Well, I'm this close to not giving him any more stuff
- Friend: That'll teach him.
Randall completely ignores the fact that "Chad" offered to store people's stuff for free and with no problems. That's how "Chad" ended up with a garage full of stuff. That's why the sudden notice that "Chad" was going to sell the stuff upset all those people. The hover text neglects to mention whether or not the people across the street are also offering to store people's stuff for free.126.96.36.199 10:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- As well as the difference between leaving a clearly worded (though still rather jerk-y) note and slipping unclear language into the already bloated Terms of Service. - jerodast (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is, he may be storing the stuff for free, but there's nothing to say that there are "no problems" involved. Effectively, once it's in Chad's house, he owns it. In any case, there's nothing to stop Cueball from not giving Chad any more stuff, or taking his stuff back from the garage. Of course, I understand it's not going to be as easy taking stuff off Instagram, but there you go. --Jimmy C (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Please note that a lot of people thought the new ToS allowed Instagram to sell their pictures but this is a misunderstanding of these ToS. This explanation should be slightly reworded in that sense. See http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/18/instagram_privacy_uproar_why_it_s_absurd_in_three_nearly_identical_sentences.html 188.8.131.52 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Great explanation, but what is meant by "to sell user-uploaded images without profit"? Sell sth without profit sounds like a paradox... – St.nerol (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- The explanation says/means "without profit to the content generators" - i.e. the people who are uploading the images (content) to Instagram. I'm sure Instagram would be making a profit selling the images...just not the original uploaders --Dangerkeith3000 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the second paragraph of the explanation. Cueball / content generators didn't "give" their stuff/photos, they merely accepted the offer of free storage. The terms and conditions of the agreement have been changed to benefit Chad/Instagram. There's no such thing as a free lunch...
- Read the fourth panel again. --Jimmy C (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- The use of the word "giving " does not imply transference of ownership. The joke lies in the fact that there is no contract for storage facilities due to the absence of consideration.
- But now it does have legal value, due to Instagram's terms of service. The slate.com link above sheds good light on this phenomenon. --Jimmy C (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, a legal agreement comes from common consent and the exchange of considerations. In reality, Instagram was forced in to a retraction because it failed to establish either and users complained +/- left. 184.108.40.206 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
The "Explanation" above starts with the assertion that this comic makes sense by itself. No, it's crazy without the context provided by the title. The point of the comic is the unrealistic expectations that Instagram's users have. 220.127.116.11 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- I was not aware of the Instagram back story and without understanding the title of this comic or how any of this pertained to Instagram I was still able to understand and appreciate the joke.--Matt
- I thought the comic was sort of funny when I first read it, but when I saw the title everything really clicked. I wrote "the comic makes sense by itself" because it did to me before I noticed the word "Instagram." 18.104.22.168 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Another slight difference is that when Chad sells Cueball's stuff, Cueball can't use it anymore. If Instagram sells its users' photos, they can still use them. If the users try to sell them though, they probably will make less money if Instagram sells them for less. Bugefun (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Another difference is that Cueball can actually get the stuff back from Chad. Instagram users can't - I mean, they can't be sure Instagram is not keeping copy. -- Hkmaly (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
My question is more mundane and editorial: how do we decide, in comics like these, who Cueball is? The "official transcript" merely has "Man #1" and "Man #2". Cueball's usually pretty sensible (or, at least, usually not completely
unreasonable), so who's to say a reasonable mapping here wouldn't be Cueball calmly typing at the computer, and "Friend" flaming about Chad's changing policies? —Scs
) 03:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)