> Links asking someone to add you on another service aren’t supported on Instagram That's some weasel-wording right there. "Not supported" makes it sound like this is a feature they'd need to code that they haven't gotten around to yet. It's not -- they needed to take the time to explicitly block something that would otherwise work by default. Phrasing it as "Links asking someone to add you on another service are not…
That's a narrow view of the word "support." Her father doesn't support her meth addiction.
Isn't instagram participation voluntary and free of charge? Monopoly over what? Everyone is free to move to another platform or start his own.
I despise this argument & your parent said monopolist behaviour. You can't just ignore the network/cool kid phenomenon when considering social networks; they're all trying to lock you into their own platform, and while you're right that they cannot be described as a full fledged monopoly they are trying their darndest to behave like one and disincentivise diversification.
The adjective you're looking for is "anti-competitive"
When someone is lying, the passive voice is a very common choice of words. (Source: I took a forensic linguistics course as part of a comp. linguistics program. One of the case studies we looked at was lying-- the data sets were comparing legal cases where documents were available that contradicted testimony, like the Enron case.) Edit: Here's a research paper that talks about it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art…
> Links asking someone to add you on another service aren’t supported on Instagram That's some weasel-wording right there. "Not supported" makes it sound like this is a feature they'd need to code that they haven't gotten around to yet. It's not -- they needed to take the time to explicitly block something that would otherwise work by default. Phrasing it as "Links asking someone to add you on another service are not…
The elephant in the room here is that big tech companies regular break laws, mostly with impunity. In many countries with a sane legal system (not sure if the USA is one of those), it is forbidden by law to arbitrarily discriminate consumers. That is, treat them differently for things they do that are neither an explicit breach of contract, nor illegal behaviour. I don't know enough of US law to say if this applies in the USA also, but companies like these ought to be publicly prosecuted for this elsewhere. The real problem is that big tech companies have vast resources (including economical and political influence) and all kind of (international) legal tricks up their sleeves, shielding them from the legal scrutiny they deserve. However, the clock is ticking. At some point, the net will close around them.
> Links asking someone to add you on another service aren’t supported on Instagram That's some weasel-wording right there. "Not supported" makes it sound like this is a feature they'd need to code that they haven't gotten around to yet. It's not -- they needed to take the time to explicitly block something that would otherwise work by default. Phrasing it as "Links asking someone to add you on another service are not…
The elephant in the room here is that big tech companies regular break laws, mostly with impunity. In many countries with a sane legal system (not sure if the USA is one of those), it is forbidden by law to arbitrarily discriminate consumers. That is, treat them differently for things they do that are neither an explicit breach of contract, nor illegal behaviour. I don't know enough of US law to say if this applies i…
What law is being broken? This is their platform to do with as they please. Nobody has a contractual agreement whereby Facebook agrees to host any and all content. They can be as partial and capricious as they desire. That is the price for abandoning open protocols.
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.
"Verified" ceased to be meaningful as actual verification as soon as "unverified" became a thing. I think making it a brand-coloured tick conveyed too much of a positive message so people took it as an endorsement, leading to pressure to "unverify" if that person did or said something bad. Given that action, the "verified" tick then becomes an even stronger signal of endorsement. Perhaps it would be better to call th…
> I think making it a brand-coloured tick conveyed too much of a positive message so people took it as an endorsement
YouTube's check mark is a tiny unassuming grey thing, and they're going through the exact same process right now where they claim it's being construed as an endorsement.
> Links asking someone to add you on another service aren’t supported on Instagram That's some weasel-wording right there. "Not supported" makes it sound like this is a feature they'd need to code that they haven't gotten around to yet. It's not -- they needed to take the time to explicitly block something that would otherwise work by default. Phrasing it as "Links asking someone to add you on another service are not…
That's a narrow view of the word "support." Her father doesn't support her meth addiction.
original point doesn't dispute that it is a 'narrow view', however, but that they are playing on ambiguity within the wider connotations since the nominal meaning in a tech context is 'support techically' rather than 'morally','ethically', etc.
The elephant in the room here is that big tech companies regular break laws, mostly with impunity. In many countries with a sane legal system (not sure if the USA is one of those), it is forbidden by law to arbitrarily discriminate consumers. That is, treat them differently for things they do that are neither an explicit breach of contract, nor illegal behaviour. I don't know enough of US law to say if this applies i…
What law is being broken? This is their platform to do with as they please. Nobody has a contractual agreement whereby Facebook agrees to host any and all content. They can be as partial and capricious as they desire. That is the price for abandoning open protocols.
"it is forbidden by law to arbitrarily discriminate consumers"
(in many countries with a sane legal system)
It is a common and stubborn misconception that laws like these somehow do not apply to big (international) tech companies. It is more the product of cultural acceptance of a reality that has existed for long time. Maybe you are right about this, within the USA. But than that would say more about the legal reality within the USA, rather than globally.