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

141–150 of 151 posts

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

#141

Post by Faark »

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…

> I distribute my thoughts using email.

I kind of get the feeling you don't target younger people? I wonder if you would also, in case you for some reason couldn't cell phones, find that totally fine, since landlines are the superior solution.

At the end of the day companies and politicians both have to go where people are, even if we find the platforms used despicable.

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

#142

Post by cwkoss »

Faark wrote: post #140
cwkoss wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That sounds like the usual persecution complex of the anti establishment/alt right. If that where the case, Twitter would be very shitty at such job, since countless of them are verified. Notably including alex jones up to his ban.

Journalists of major publications and celebrities are pretty evenly verified. Maybe it's just the circles I follow, but I encounter a lot of random 'liberal centrist with a podcast who has written 2 op eds'-types that seem to be more famous on twitter than anywhere else.

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

#143

Post by lone_haxx0r »

elmo2you wrote: post #104
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…

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…

For example: Do you think that Cloudflare should have been forced to keep offering its service to 8chan?

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

#145

Post by ineedasername »

btrask wrote: post #128
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…

> When someone is lying, the passive voice is a very common choice of words. The passive voice was used to write this sentence.

In your comment, yes; In my comment, no. You can use the passive voice detector to examine it: https://datayze.com/passive-voice-detector.php

Fun fact: That detector uses zombies!

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

#146

Post by idlerboris »

elmo2you wrote: post #131
elmo2you wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said: "treat them differently for things they do that are neither an explicit breach of contract, nor illegal behaviour" In other words: these rules need to be explicitly stated in whatever contract consumer and provider agreed on. These rules also need to be universally enforced. Rules that are (intentionally or not) written in such a way that they lend themselves for arbitrary application (that is, not equally…

More to the point: if you provide a service (or product) to the general public, you have to accept that people will user it as they see fit. If you want to limit the ways your service (or product) can be used, you can do so by explicitly arranging these limitations through a contract. Things that are already (otherwise) illegal do not have to be included in this arrangement (hopefully for obvious reasons). Whatever i…

So, if they have a line "You're not able to post links to other services in your profile" in the agreement, then everything would be ok?

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

#147

Post by input_sh »

cwkoss wrote: post #133
input_sh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, the truth leans heavily on one side, considering that there's not a single one even remotely relevant fact checking organization on the other one.

I assure you, if you believe this, you're being frequently misled. Don't get me wrong, I think these sources are more accurate than many journalistic institutions, but they are not infallible or completely unbiased.

Did I claim that they were unbiased or did I claim that the concepts like truth, facts, and research lean heavily towards one side?

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

#148

Post by collyw »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #98
collyw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it means "person full of their own self importance".

That might be necessary, but it's not sufficient; there are many users who are not "verified" who are very convinced of their own importance;)

Agreed, but a check mark confirms it for me.

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

#149

Post by elmo2you »

idlerboris wrote: post #146
elmo2you wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More to the point: if you provide a service (or product) to the general public, you have to accept that people will user it as they see fit. If you want to limit the ways your service (or product) can be used, you can do so by explicitly arranging these limitations through a contract. Things that are already (otherwise) illegal do not have to be included in this arrangement (hopefully for obvious reasons). Whatever i…

So, if they have a line "You're not able to post links to other services in your profile" in the agreement, then everything would be ok?

In principle: yes. That is, as long as the agreement is not in violation of other rules/laws. Considering the role a service has in society and its market position, such a rule could e.g. violate anti trust law. But that's a different matter, and up to a court to decide.

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

#150

Post by dwild »

fulvous wrote: post #135
dwild wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if your ID has been "verified", why would you all of a sudden no longer be verified unless the verification was fraudulent? From what I understands, the previous verification was merely reaching 100k, nothing more. I wouldn't call that fraudulent, but considering many people may expect it to means that their identity was actually verified by Youtube (and not that they simply reached a milestone in subscription)…

On YouTube can you set your name to anything, including the name of another channel. This leads to accounts with the same name and profile picture as the actual channel commenting on any popular video. These accounts typically have no subscribers as they are not channels of actual creators. Having 100K subscribers proves you are an actual channel with fans who will want to know if a comment posted under that name is…

> Having 100K subscribers proves you are an actual channel with fans who will want to know if a comment posted under that name is the actual content creator.

There's 2 issues here. First it doesn't means the subscribers are actually legit. You could see from time to time channel that can lose hundred thousands subscribers in a day because Youtube purged a bunch of fake accounts. It's harder to see now that Youtube abbreviate the subscriber count, but I remember, it wasn't something constant, it was sporadic.

Second, it's only true if the name is original. More and more channels reach the 100k everyday, it's just going to be harder and harder to make sure none of them try to impersonate someone else. If that stay the only thing needed to be "verified", you'll get someone that will get that "verified" status even though he isn't the one he is saying he is, that's just the good old Murphy's law for you.

As I said, verify tag make people believe that you have actually been verified. It does makes sense that you change your politic so that you actually verify people...

Post reply on HN