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

Someone has stolen my Instagram account

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 351 posts

Re: Someone has stolen my Instagram account

#321

Post by exikyut »

zaz77 wrote: post #132
moonshinefe wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an extremely well known phenomenon at all. Asserting things while being overly emotional and aggressive isn't evidence. So: Citation needed.

So are you asking for screenshots from my email of the thread where everyone came together to agree on the terms and execution of the conspiracy, or? Also, sarcasm isn’t an emotion. I’m English, so perhaps consider that my culture of challenging someone is different from yours before projecting whatever big bad horrible emotional troll hurt your feelings once. Facebook is literally more employees than even populate t…

[Rhetorically expresses curiosity at what those terms might have looked like, broadly speaking]

Not the obvious, like "everyone's going to look the other way", but more like... target account upper watermarks, "motivation threshold" (ahem), internal tracking (if any), collective opinion on precedent, etc.

Oh, and scale.

Re: Someone has stolen my Instagram account

#324

Post by Deely123123 »

iamleppert wrote: post #323

This isn’t your property. It belongs to Facebook, they are just letting you use it and they have the right to take it away or do whatever they want with it. If you’re a nobody you don’t have a lot of recourse, just got to move on with your life.

Its exactly the same as with government, yes? Roads isn't our property, houses (sometime) isn't our property, country where we all live isn't our property. So what?

Re: Someone has stolen my Instagram account

#326

Post by megous »

spyder wrote: post #302
megous wrote: post #42

It's part of ToS you can lose your account at any time for any reason. And it's their first rule.

No? Where do you see that? https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870

Allright, looks like ddg returns this for the first result of "tos instagram":

https://megous.com/dl/tmp/639eea0ad46fc91d.png

https://www.instagram.com/about/legal/terms/before-january-1...

And it's an old ToS. Looks like they softened it up since then. But it was quite unequivocal back then. ;)

Re: Someone has stolen my Instagram account

#328

Post by toyg »

notdang wrote: post #315
polynomial wrote: post #133

It appears to have reverted back to the originally Danny? (6 posts, not 100, 5,563 followers, 6 posts, set to private) https://www.instagram.com/danny/

apparently he did not lost his images. the original account was swapped with this one: https://www.instagram.com/danny.miracle.done3/

How? Where did you read about it? The fact that IG accounts can be just "swapped" like that seems like a big security problem.

Re: Someone has stolen my Instagram account

#329

Post by sagichmal »

Kranar wrote: post #312
sagichmal wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the purpose of this comment? It has the appearance of being a defense of an unjust status quo. Is that your intent? Or do you think a "reminder" of the existence and consequences of unjust power structures serves some other, useful purpose? It doesn't, but I'm interested to know your rationale.

The purpose of the comment seems fairly straightforward and highlights exactly what was originally claimed, that the section of the ToS that claims Instagram can close any account for any reason is only true for people who have no influence or notoriety. It is not true of public and/or influential figures who could have a strong claim against Instagram for arbitrarily deciding to close their account. That one set of…

Do you think that this comment provides new information to literally anybody who is reading it? Given the answer is obviously "no", what do you think the actual effect is? Do you understand that it reads as a defense of the status quo?

Re: Someone has stolen my Instagram account

#330

Post by sagichmal »

megous wrote: post #288
sagichmal wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the purpose of this comment? It has the appearance of being a defense of an unjust status quo. Is that your intent? Or do you think a "reminder" of the existence and consequences of unjust power structures serves some other, useful purpose? It doesn't, but I'm interested to know your rationale.

I'm just saying that platform's behavior to top users, doesn't say much about what they can or can't do (or are doing) under their ToS to normal people.

Do you think this isn't obvious? Why do you take the time to point it out?
Post reply on HN