>>3385676>comparing life insurance policy to a free image sharing platformOh no
>contract you've signedYou haven't signed a contract and you haven't paid money either. It was free, until it wasn't.
>if you rely entirely on staged photographsAlright, I'll just concede and say different strokes for different folks. My big thing is that I've never felt the urge to follow someone who just dumps every last picture from an event, especially if so many of them are nearly identical in terms of light/composition/angle/subject. A lot of paid services usually host images from events like weddings for X time before they delete it all. Why do you think that is?
This all said, challenging the idea of using it to "backup" pictures is a hill I'll die on. While Flickr has some of the best compression I've seen (read: it's hardly noticeable for most shit I upload aside from color banding, in images where there was a whole lot of color depth), it's still compression. IMO, a "backup" is not viable if it's actually reducing the quality of your shots, period. Storage is so cheap nowadays, you can get a 1 TB backup drive for about the cost of one year of Flickr pro. It's going to be a drop in the bucket for almost anyone, especially people paying so much already on camera gear, travel, a computer/workstation for processing, etc.
>a last ditch resortIf it's a last ditch resort, then why so much outrage? I wouldn't backup anything online to a server I don't own or have physical access to, period. I remember Apple fucked up and lost a bunch of people's data a while back, and it could happen with anyone, be it Google, Amazon or Flickr.
