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.184.108.40.206 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 -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- 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.
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. -- 18.104.22.168 (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." 22.214.171.124 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)