Aren’t pictures the point of Instagram, though? I don’t use Instagram, but I would not expect people to like something that is basically a picture sharing service without the pictures.

And in my opinion, the ChatGPT summary is a pretty good condensation of those 500 words. There are some things that are said more than once, and some details that are interesting, but not crucial for having a discussion about the topic, particularly with a focus on privacy.

Sure, 500 words isn’t a big ask, but I think when 500 words really conveys 300 words worth of content, and easily boils down to more like 100, it is reasonable to choose to read 100. I enjoyed reading 500, but that doesn’t mean everyone should.

[/I took a lot more words than necessary, lol, it’s because I am a degenerate]

You’re right that “technical difficulties” are not a good defense when they break the law, and neither is “we didn’t do it on purpose.” I don’t think it would be a case where they’d have to pay for the use of the content, though, it would be a case under privacy law. And that would be a lose-lose situation, since if they won the privacy case, they would open a different, potentially nastier area of liability. I’m not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read, this is dangerous territory. Their safest move here would be to quietly re-delete everything, and try to convince users that the rollbacks never happened. (Aka “gaslighting.”)