Influencer-style pictures are simply the way we document our lives now. Beyond pointing out the fact that the original tweet is a sensational fabrication designed to spark outrage—which is really unfortunate and bad!—this argument seems too simplistic, too much of a “Actually you're wrong, this is fine and how we do things now” hot take. Sure, one can take selfies at sites of tragedy, but we can also question and examine how this all came to be: What is an ‘influencer?’ What effects do they have on audiences and subjects? Is this ‘ruin porn?’ How does publicly available life-documentation (i.e. Instagram) differ from the limited availability of the personal printed photo album of the past?

We can and should support the companies we love with our money. Companies can and should have balanced streams of income so that they’re not solely dependent on just one. We all should consider the business models of the companies we trust with our data. But we should not assume that, just because we pay a company they’ll treat us better, or that if we’re not paying that the company is allowed to treat us like shit. Reality is just more complicated than that. What matters is how companies demonstrate their respect for their customers. We should hold their feet to the fire when they demonstrate a lack of respect.

On the bright side, by interpreting the confusing policy in the most alarming possible light, the tech press has forced Instagram to toe the line more carefully than it otherwise might have. That's a win for users

Tens of millions of people made a decision to spend their time with the simple, mobile photo-sharing application that was not Facebook because they liked its subtle interface and little filters. And so Facebook bought the thing that is hardest to fake. It bought sincerity.