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

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

manualdousuario.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 312 posts

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

#301

Post by geddy »

renewiltord wrote: post #254
geddy wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about when it's on another site that you don't have access to? What about when it's a type of content that is relevant to you? This is hacker news so I'll assume you're involved in technology in some capacity - what if something like Stackoverflow was purchased by Facebook or Google and you couldn't view questions without a valid Facebook account? You're seeing step 1 and not realizing that step 4 or 5 is the en…

There is no slippery slope. I'll object to step 4. StackOverflow is CC-BY-SA so I'm not that worried. If they try to change that, I'll kick up a fuss or whatever. It's not like fighting this will help with that. Wholly different audiences.

If there's no "slippery slope", then why do 3-4 companies control the entire internet today, when a decade or more ago there were 15-20 players? Go even further back and you had a myriad of choices; now Amazon, Facebook and Google have sucked up and shut down just about all competitors.

If you don't care, then you don't care. But saying there's no slippery slope? It's capitalism. It's happened with internet providers, it's happened with search engines, it's happened with social media, online stores, it's been funneling into a handful of companies for over a decade now. People want things for free and companies are willing to sell your data to finance their payroll. Saying it won't happen anymore is just naive.

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

#302

Post by MrStonedOne »

vpEfljFL wrote: post #207
MrStonedOne wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't get why some users don't like the change. You're free to decide should you use a product or not. Some people aren't quitters. They don't just quit whenever something stops going their way, they try to change it, try to improve it, try to make it better, even if the only way they have to do that is express why its not best. Be more like them.

My point is you're not a customer after all. IG customers are advertisers. Why advertisers wouldn't be happy with a new change? We do try to improve products we use but in this story unfortunately you don't have a voice because if you're not an advertiser. Think about how much ads you need to sell to earn 1B back at least and sustain operating expenses especially when you're not trying to be lean with your resources.

I think you are putting too much stock in the importance of a "Customer". If I'm using a service, i'm a user of that service. As a user, I do have a right to not like the changes to usability of that service.

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

#303

Post by chadlavi »

angelbar wrote: post #243
chadlavi wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're in a browser with adblockers and you're not signed in, there's not much they can do to monetize you effectively. I assume this is just a means of forcing people who use instagram in the browser to at least admit who they are so they can tie browsing to a known tracking id. I'm honestly surprised instagram even lets people use the app in any meaningful way on desktop at all.

Instragram has ads?

is that a joke? it's like 20% ads

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

#304

Post by vpEfljFL »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #302
vpEfljFL wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is you're not a customer after all. IG customers are advertisers. Why advertisers wouldn't be happy with a new change? We do try to improve products we use but in this story unfortunately you don't have a voice because if you're not an advertiser. Think about how much ads you need to sell to earn 1B back at least and sustain operating expenses especially when you're not trying to be lean with your resources.

I think you are putting too much stock in the importance of a "Customer". If I'm using a service, i'm a user of that service. As a user, I do have a right to not like the changes to usability of that service.

You have those rights as a human not as an IG user.

As IG user you have only one right, to say "yes" to any changes they want and to obey to the algorithm of banning and censoring. You don't have any right if you can't enforce it. They can ban end censor your opinion and can enforce this right, you can't do anything about it. You are the product they're selling after all and they care about you in terms of as much revenue you can generate on this particular platform (macro picture of user retention).

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

#305

Post by fao_ »

sjroot wrote: post #23
fao_ wrote: post #15

Some friends roped me into signing up to Instagram, so I did. I got to the sign in process and "an error occurred". I tried to login and it said "account does not exist", but I tried to re-sign up, and it said "This account already exists". I emailed them for help but they said I had to post a photo of myself holding a pad with my username on it. Which, fair enough, but giving away my face to a faceless corporation i…

Disclaimer: no affiliation with IG This sounds like a _very_ unusual experience. Clearly millions (billions?) of people create Instagram accounts with no issues. Why not just create a different account? > If this is how they treat their prospective customers... You certainly aren't a customer, which might explain the lack of priority. :)

I tried three different email addresses (aliases, really) and had the same problem with all of them.

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

#306

Post by seph-reed »

Darkphibre wrote: post #228
seph-reed wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unpopular amongst "hackers" to devalidate the use of FB products in this way. For better or worse, that's apparent from this.

I think the unpopular opinion here is "I don't find value, thus there is no value." When, in reality, many people do find a value. Somewhere. Heck, I post maybe once a year on Facebook. It's how my in-laws communicate, so that's where I have to go if I want to interact with that part of my social graph. It has a value (however small), even if I wished it didn't.

I see what you're saying, but given how addictive FB is, and how much advertisement they use, you're kind of giving them the upper hand by playing neutral.

For instance, I never go to Walmart (but sometimes do). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=repxFQXVsHc

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

#308

Post by renewiltord »

geddy wrote: post #301
renewiltord wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no slippery slope. I'll object to step 4. StackOverflow is CC-BY-SA so I'm not that worried. If they try to change that, I'll kick up a fuss or whatever. It's not like fighting this will help with that. Wholly different audiences.

If there's no "slippery slope", then why do 3-4 companies control the entire internet today, when a decade or more ago there were 15-20 players? Go even further back and you had a myriad of choices; now Amazon, Facebook and Google have sucked up and shut down just about all competitors. If you don't care, then you don't care. But saying there's no slippery slope? It's capitalism. It's happened with internet providers…

There literally is no slippery slope because the CC-BY-SA stalls any slipping. You literally cannot lock away that content, and that license aligns StackOverflow's incentives with mine.

The structure of the Internet precludes universal locking away. I am confident in my ability and that of my fellow engineers to always have alternatives.

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

#309

Post by alufers »

lowan12 wrote: post #291
alufers wrote: post #174

I sometimes used to browse my friend's instagram feeds just to see what they have been up to, as I don't use instagram due to privacy concerns and personalized feeds being a time-eater. The desktop experience has been degrading for the past year or so, for example you were unable to scroll past maybe 20 photos on someones profile without logging in. That's ridiculous, and I hope that Instagram and Facebook die someda…

I mean, aside from the fact that you don't like it, why is that "ridiculous"? It's their platform, can they not do what they want?

Well it is their platform, but they are using what I would consider unethical means to force people to create accounts, collecting and selling their data.

Sure, you can say that I should avoid Mark's websites altogether if I want to keep my data safe, but that would probably mean that a huge portion of my social life would be sacrificed.

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

#310

Post by em-bee »

jshevek wrote: post #109
thatsoundsmean wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like an unnecessarily aggressive way to handle that. It certainly could have been an honest mistake on the part of the user who owned that account. Why not just change the email address on the account?

This may or may not be relevant: > Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.

what is my identity id for me to decide and not for you to claim. my identity on HN is my messages here, nothing else. if you need more than that you are welcome to ask and we can establish another identity outside this platform
Post reply on HN