Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

beebom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

#31

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

mc32 wrote: post #7

This “verified” nonsense is silly. Twitter knew who Assange was but refused to “verify” him. They should change what they call verified to another label like “goodie two-shoes” instead. As it is is a complete misnomer. It’s basically used to get users to behave a certain way and if they don’t conform they don’t get verified or if they are verified it gets revoked.

> They should change what they call verified to another label like “goodie two-shoes” instead.

I agree with your main point. On a tangent: I'm not sure "goodie two-shoes" is quite the right term.

I would argue that by helping to expose illegal actions by the U.S. government, Assange was a poster child for "goodies two-shoes".

Re: Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

#32

Post by echelon »

sailfast wrote: post #23

Removing links to other platforms is anti-competitive full stop. Threatening de-verification due to links is even worse. This is the behavior of monopolists. The FTC and existing anti-trust organizations would do well to return to their jobs and take a look at these practices broadly across the tech industry.

Absolutely! I'm surprised you're the first one to call this out.

In my mind this is how these companies see their platforms plucked from their hands and spun off as independent companies.

This is incredibly unfair to users. It's a sign that these platforms have become a mafia protection racket.

It's not just as if they're saying "If you consider the competition, you'll lose everything." They're actually doing this.

Wow.

Re: Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

#33

Post by fhennig »

Every now and then there are these news, where platform owners "abuse" their power on the platform to do something in their favor. I remember an example where HN discussed about how "Amazon's choice" doesn't mean that it's a good product, it's likely just a product which generates a lot of revenue for amazon.

It should be of no surprise that plaform owners will behave in this way. I think the way forward should be protocols over platforms. ActivityPub over social networks. Matrix over instant messengers.

Protocols are empowering. In the earlier days of the web there were many different protocols for different things people wanted to do, such as SMTP, FTP, HTTP etc.

Re: Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

#34

Post by blotter_paper »

AliAdams wrote: post #30
mc32 wrote: post #7

This “verified” nonsense is silly. Twitter knew who Assange was but refused to “verify” him. They should change what they call verified to another label like “goodie two-shoes” instead. As it is is a complete misnomer. It’s basically used to get users to behave a certain way and if they don’t conform they don’t get verified or if they are verified it gets revoked.

Maybe "Trusted" could be be a better alternative to "Verified".

If a President were caught in a lie, would the "Trusted" status be removed? If not, what would the "Trusted" status even mean?

Re: Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

#35

Post by cm2187 »

AliAdams wrote: post #30
mc32 wrote: post #7

This “verified” nonsense is silly. Twitter knew who Assange was but refused to “verify” him. They should change what they call verified to another label like “goodie two-shoes” instead. As it is is a complete misnomer. It’s basically used to get users to behave a certain way and if they don’t conform they don’t get verified or if they are verified it gets revoked.

Maybe "Trusted" could be be a better alternative to "Verified".

Authenticated?

Re: Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

#36

Post by mc32 »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #31
mc32 wrote: post #7

This “verified” nonsense is silly. Twitter knew who Assange was but refused to “verify” him. They should change what they call verified to another label like “goodie two-shoes” instead. As it is is a complete misnomer. It’s basically used to get users to behave a certain way and if they don’t conform they don’t get verified or if they are verified it gets revoked.

> They should change what they call verified to another label like “goodie two-shoes” instead. I agree with your main point. On a tangent: I'm not sure "goodie two-shoes" is quite the right term. I would argue that by helping to expose illegal actions by the U.S. government, Assange was a poster child for "goodies two-shoes".

I kind of get your point, but generally speaking a goodie two-shoes doesn’t rock the boat and is more of a pleaser (to authority).

Re: Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

#37

Post by sandworm101 »

danjin250 wrote: post #29
sandworm101 wrote: post #24

One upon a time an evil file might be called 'vader' or 'skynet'. Now harry potter fans are senior enough to decide on project names. I feel old.

I think it's also that the "he who shall not be named" aspect here isn't shared by Vader or skynet

As Vader was a cover name for annikin. Iconic evil characters are all pretty similar. Jedi are essentially space wizards.

Re: Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

#38

Post by mc32 »

blotter_paper wrote: post #34
AliAdams wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe "Trusted" could be be a better alternative to "Verified".

If a President were caught in a lie, would the "Trusted" status be removed? If not, what would the "Trusted" status even mean?

“Lie” is too strict. Everyone is caught making false statements. Everyone would get “distrusted.”

Re: Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

#39

Post by cdelsolar »

jstanley wrote: post #20
mosselman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not that I agree with this practice, but ... http://www.beresources.co.uk/everything-before-but-is-bullsh...

> Apologies to those of a sensitive nature for the graphicness (is that a word?) of the headline. However, it is true. The meaning of this excerpt would be exactly the same if the word "but" were used instead of "however" (which is, I suspect, why it was worded in this clumsy way - to avoid "but"). Are we to conclude that the author doesn't actually give a shit about the "graphicness" of the headline?

what?
Post reply on HN