Instagram no longer allows people without an account to view photos on computers

Post by inopinatus » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

shigeo wrote: post #166

inopinatus wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on ones measure of success. Mine is, does this product and/or service represent a net benefit to humanity without egregious side-effects? the answer isn’t always so clear-cut

Out of curiosity, why does the condition "without egregious side effects" exist? Aren't egregious side effects already factored ibto the "net benefit" calculation?

Post by ethbro » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

tln wrote: post #222

ethbro wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody contests that. The negative outlook instead seems to be that since 2010, Facebook (the product, not the engineering team) has delivered little value to society. And at this point, seems to have ossified into a form that lacks the agility and will to make major shifts. Their current emphasis on purchasing other companies for their product pipelines, to drive business to their advertising, seems more akin to pha…

Facebook delivers value every day to billions of daily active users -- the social updates. The value varies by person but presumably it's positive value for all DAU or they would cease to be DAU. Perhaps Facebook hasn't increased value delivered for each user for each day that much. Or has even decreased it. But the baseline is definitely "value to society" IMO Did you mean Facebook has delivered little marginal valu…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

Meai wrote: post #157

helsinki wrote: post #153

This is a reasonable decision on their part. I don’t think people realize how much of their traffic is bots scraping the location of people from photos.

well, how much is it? do you have a source?

Post by lmilcin » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #198

lmilcin wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is typical marketing-speak. I am becoming temporarily deaf whenever I hear it. Read it the following way: We have a reason to do it but we don't want to tell you so instead we will tell you a little bit of righteously-sounding bullshit so that most of sheep base is satisfied. Yes, that's "sheep", because you are not our customers, our customers are those companies we sell your information and your focus to.

I really don't think there are sheeps around who actually believe that. Everybody knows this is just marketing speak in a way, marketing people are expected to speak. Or maybe, there are people who would believe it, but they have an account already. And most simple do not care. They read, they have to create an account to get the content, so they do create an account.

Post by Swenrekcah » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:40 PM UTC

asdkjh345fd wrote: post #162

novok wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you signed up for gmail or similar early, then dumbasses of the world use your email address as 'their email' dozens of times a day for random internet accounts because it's also their name, and they don't understand or don't care that it isn't their email address. It gets tiring fast and services don't deal with this usecase that well other than 'forget password'. That guy was the initial asshole to signup using…

People don't seem to understand just how common this problem is with any sort of initial.lastname@gmail address. It is insane to me that so many major big name companies do ZERO email verification on signups and just start spamming me with with garbage every time some idiot uses my email address and expect me to "unsubscribe" to something I never subscribed to in the first place.