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

111–120 of 151 posts

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

#111

Post by jgtrosh »

hammock wrote: post #101
danShumway wrote: post #59

> 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.

That comment was saying that technical support is the natural understanding, and that this lack of clarity makes it a weasel-word. This is especially true since there are more straightforward alternatives such as the one that was given.

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

#112

Post by rolltiide »

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.

The checkmark status should be like that.

It should be like an voluntary stricter license with arbitrary conditions set on content creators.

They just need to articulate what those conditions are.

The lack of being direct is what is hurting them here, and also not communicating what “verified” actually means, because it doesnt mean “you are popular and important” it just means “you are an aspiring LA model or aspiring SF tech CEO that both perform for Saudi money”

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

#113

Post by cwkoss »

aqme28 wrote: post #86
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.

Consider also https://twitter.com/AlbertEinstein It's not a long-dead scientist, but is still verified as such.

That is really disgusting that they are verifying dead people. Even though his estate authorized it, seems like a betrayal of his legacy to allow someone else to present their speech from him.

I hope the US soon passes legislation banning impersonation of the dead unless they explicitly authorized that use while alive.

Similarly Erica Garner's account is verified and was taken over by one of her friends after her death. Some controversy after account tweeted things in direct contradiction to what Garner said while alive.

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

#114

Post by ritchje »

HiroshiSan wrote: post #73

This somewhat related but Instagram has started doing some shady shit, for starters if you browse without an account they now cover the page with a sign up splash. The one that really grinds my gears is that I made an Instagram to follow some artists I really enjoyed browsing, and for whatever reason their algorithm flagged me, and so they deactivated my account. In order to reactivate my account they requested a pic…

Was it a new account? If so, the same thing happened to me; I created an account on Sunday to follow some photographers and my account immediately got disabled - before I could even login for the first time!

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

#115

Post by echelon »

hamilyon2 wrote: post #100
echelon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> participation voluntary and free of charge If you want distribution of your thoughts, you have to use the walled garden controlled by giants. > Everyone is free to move to another platform or start his own. The reality is that you can't. Not without billions of dollars of funding. Social networks should be regulated. They can't own the platform and make moves to crush others by threatening to downgrade your voice a…

I distribute my thoughts using email. I have not hit it's scalability limits yet. I cry when I think that in some future I will have to be under some proprietary platform control to distribute my thoughts. > The reality is that you can't. The reality is that is was solved a while ago, the solution is rss and email. Instagram instead offers popularity and nice photo filters and colored ticks on avatars. Which are noth…

> The reality is that is was solved a while ago, the solution is rss and email.

You are in a very small minority when compared to the average internet user. This is the same attitude that advocates for IRC and Jabber when modern alternatives have taken over due to user friendliness, network power, and corporate ownership/management.

It's not to say these platforms don't have problems (they do), or that a non-open model is preferable (it's certainly not ideal).

> Instagram instead offers popularity and nice photo filters and colored ticks on avatars. Which are nothing in common with distributing thoughts.

We can't ignore that the Internet has moved on from our technical solutions since the rest of the world got online. If we want it to remain open, it's up to us to help reign things back in through legislation when we see such blatantly gross abuses such as this.

If you keep pointing to RSS as the solution while simultaneously discounting all of the moves that are being made by the big players, RSS will wither and die and you will be left with nothing.

Platform control. Regulatory capture. Impenetrable new "standards". DRM. Dropped support for HTTP, RSS, semantic HTML, ad blocking, video...

Just imagine what the Internet will look like in twenty years and tell me that doesn't worry you.

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

#116

Post by cwkoss »

cameronbrown wrote: post #92
apostacy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crummy Buzzfeed content drones with 5000 followers are getting verified. Verification ticks are just a badge of being well connected, and approved. And having your tick removed is a way of saying that you have stepped out of line.

That's what worries me about verified. It's just a form of nepotism at the end of the day and they certainly prefer certain niches (Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the media industry, etc..) over others.

Also seems verified is fairly correlated with certain political ideologies - kind of feels like twitter is trying to direct conversation without taking responsibility for bias.

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

#117

Post by cwkoss »

stickfigure wrote: post #79
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who watches the watchers? So far pretty much every fact checking organization, regardless of original intent, eventually succumbs to the temptation to bend their fact checking to their ideological preference. There is no social media company that has the credibility to even be taken seriously as a impartial arbiter of fact.

Yet everyone does not like equally, not by a longshot. We have sites like snopes and polifact. Maybe not perfect, but better than postmodern nonsense like "there is no truth".

This elevation of the credibility of snopes and politifact would make it more damaging when they choose to editorialize.

People who share political ideologies with these sites tend to overestimate their accuracy and underestimate their displayed bias.

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

#118

Post by dfxm12 »

1f60c wrote: post #97
aqme28 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider also https://twitter.com/AlbertEinstein It's not a long-dead scientist, but is still verified as such.

It says it’s managed by his estate—it seems fine to me?

I disagree. I mean, it's fine that Einstein's estate is tweeting under his name, but that shouldn't satisfy Twitter's definition of verification. Verification means:

The blue verified badge on Twitter lets people know that an account of public interest is authentic. [0]

It's not authentically Albert Einstein (which is objective), nor do I see how his estate posting science news from who-knows-where is of public interest (this is subjective, and there is enough grey area that it makes for a weak policy).

If an account is verified, Twitter should also explain why. This explanation could be in the users' bio.

0 - https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/twitter-ve...

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

#119

Post by ineedasername »

tinkertamper wrote: post #90
ineedasername wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where can I read more on this?

I don't remember the source of the material when I took the class, but it's been built upon since then. Here's one example that used the Enron corpus:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981627/

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

#120

Post by lightedman »

im3w1l wrote: post #15
mosselman wrote: post #6

What I think is the problem is the terminology. 'Verified' makes it sound like there is some identity checking going on. It is nonsense to say that because someone is posting on 2 platforms, they suddenly aren't who they say they are. If you use the term 'affiliate' or 'partner' it is a different story. If you are posting on 2 or more platforms, it is logical for all involved platforms to not feel like partners anymo…

Call me paranoid but it seems increasingly that Big Tech uses all their avenues to force conformity. The message is that if you don't do what we want, bad things start happening. It can happen anytime anywhere and you wont necessarily know why. It's about encouraging a helpless, submissive, fearful mentality. Maybe they'll no longer show you as verified. Maybe your posts will be demoted a bit in the feed. Maybe you n…

"Call me paranoid but it seems increasingly that Big Tech uses all their avenues to force conformity. The message is that if you don't do what we want, bad things start happening. It can happen anytime anywhere and you wont necessarily know why. It's about encouraging a helpless, submissive, fearful mentality."

Just like is done here on HN through its rules and enforcement of such, with maybe the exception of not knowing why. It still encourages a submissive, fearful mentality. Well, not for me, because I really DGAF and will continue to speak as I see fit. I can't speak to the gonadal fortitude of the rest of HN commenters.

Post reply on HN