5 ms·

Well, it feels weird to defend Instagram, but here we go. The important lines from the article are these ones: > Instagram confirmed to Newsbeat that Kevin's h

by clra 8y ago

Well, it feels weird to defend Instagram, but here we go. The important lines from the article are these ones: > Instagram confirmed to Newsbeat that Kevin's handle had been changed in line with its policy. > It allows it to make changes to an account if it's been inactive for a certain amount of time. I tried going to the guy's new Instagram [1], but couldn't see any posts there at all. I visited his Twitter [2] instead, and except for a few posts he made from the exciting run in the last 24 hours, he hadn't tweeted since 2013. I don't think they did a bad thing here — it's their platform, and they have some incentive to encourage a more lively and current community. Although it seems minor, one facet of this might be to help big users reclaim better names from the huge pool of defunct ones out there, especially given that Instagram has gotten so big that finding anything that's not a conflict is difficult. --- [1] https://www.instagram.com/_sussexroyal_/ https://www.instagram.com/_sussexroyal_/ [2] https://twitter.com/Sussexroyal/ https://twitter.com/Sussexroyal/

yashap 8y ago
Yeah, zero posts and doesn’t even have a profile pic. It’s a dead account, I don’t have much of an issue with Instagram’s policy to “steal” handles on accounts like this.
- RandallBrown 8y ago
  Or maybe he just likes photos and follows his nephews or something.
  - lightgreen 8y ago
    Not choosing sides but have to say that he can still do that with his old now renamed account.
drb91 8y ago
> encourage a more lively and current community Ahh yes, nothing more lively and current than watching senior citizens coo over monarchs. In all seriousness, this is just another step towards instagram being another bland reflection of the media fun house in which we all live: famous people get air time to pimp products and movements.
- jamespo 8y ago
  It was hardly an anarchist playground in years gone by
- blattimwind 8y ago
  > In all seriousness, this is just another step towards instagram being another bland reflection of the media fun house in which we all live: famous people get air time to pimp products and movements. ??? Instagram is a mainstream everything-is-an-ad site and has been since I've first heard of it.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > watching senior citizens coo over monarchs Nobody in this situation is a monarch or ever likely to be a monarch.
  - daenz 8y ago
    The term was used incorrectly, but to me it's obvious what they meant: non-functioning political celebrities.
- hombre_fatal 8y ago
  > nothing more lively and current than watching senior citizens coo over monarchs. You underestimate the reach here. When it comes to Prince Harry and Meghan, it's like saying only senior citizens care about the Kardashians.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
Why does the absence of posts indicate inactivity? He said in the article he uses it to like posts, but not create content. That doesn't sound inactive to me. In fact, Instagram basically encourages this type of account use. Any time you try to browse the site they try to get you to sign-up, even if you have zero intention of making your own posts. It sounds like the guy would have given the account name over either way, so why couldn't they have simply contacted him first and asked?
- zamadatix 8y ago
  "would you give up your account name" "No" "We have changed your account name" Is 10x worse than "we have changed your account name". If you're going to do something and there aren't any alternatives don't act like it's a question unless an extremely high ratio will say yes.
  - littlestymaar 8y ago
    What about "would you give up your account name" "No" "Ok fine, I'll have to find a new name. Have a nice day sir.". This story pretty much sounds like “All animals are equals but some are more equals than others”[1] to me. [1]Georges Orwell Animal Farm (his best book IMO)
    - sbr464 8y ago
      Great reference. Perfectly fitting.
    - jdsully 8y ago
      Isn't the whole premise of royalty that we are explicitly not equal?
      - littlestymaar 8y ago
        But as far as I know, US citizens[1] don't recognize sovereignty of the British Crown since 1776… In that particular days, they even ratified a text saying “that all men are created equal”. [1] (and Instagram is owned byt a majority of American citizens)
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> Instagram has gotten so big that finding anything that's not a conflict is difficult. I don't understand online services' obsession with making sure public-facing identifiers are unique. This is not close to true in any other area. How many British guys can be named Harry? If there could be two World of Warcraft toons named Joe, maybe there wouldn't be so many xX_KillStealr69_Xx-es running around.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  Wouldn’t the same issue apply to email addresses or domain names? At some point there needs to be a unique identifier or ID to locate the right destination. How else could this be accomplished, especially when we are talking about URL structures that need to be somewhat short in length?
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    In this particular case, I'm guessing -- based on the URLs -- that in order to have the Instagram username "sussexroyal", it's also necessary to be located at www.instagram.com/sussexroyal . This is a design mistake. The URL identifier does not need to be the public-facing identifier, and it shouldn't be. You can have the Duke of Sussex as sussexroyal at www.instagram.com/y6llflk9 and the guy in Sussex who roots for the Royals as sussexroyal at www.instagram.com/y2q9g6uo . There is no need to have the public-facing identifier be the unique identifier, nor is there a good reason to do it. ICQ got this right, way back at the beginning. But somehow everyone forgot.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      But instagram.com/sussexroyal is a much more memorable URL than instagram.com/y2q9g6uo, and being able to find someone from remembering their handle is much better than remembering the handle and then wondering which of the multiple people called sussexroyal you're after when the search results come through Needless to say, the most prominent and memorable identifier being non-unique has all sorts of uses for trolls and spambots too.

by clra 8y ago

yashap 8y ago

Yeah, zero posts and doesn’t even have a profile pic. It’s a dead account, I don’t have much of an issue with Instagram’s policy to “steal” handles on accounts like this.

RandallBrown 8y ago
Or maybe he just likes photos and follows his nephews or something.
- lightgreen 8y ago
  Not choosing sides but have to say that he can still do that with his old now renamed account.

drb91 8y ago

> encourage a more lively and current community Ahh yes, nothing more lively and current than watching senior citizens coo over monarchs. In all seriousness, this is just another step towards instagram being another bland reflection of the media fun house in which we all live: famous people get air time to pimp products and movements.

jamespo 8y ago
It was hardly an anarchist playground in years gone by
blattimwind 8y ago
> In all seriousness, this is just another step towards instagram being another bland reflection of the media fun house in which we all live: famous people get air time to pimp products and movements. ??? Instagram is a mainstream everything-is-an-ad site and has been since I've first heard of it.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> watching senior citizens coo over monarchs Nobody in this situation is a monarch or ever likely to be a monarch.
- daenz 8y ago
  The term was used incorrectly, but to me it's obvious what they meant: non-functioning political celebrities.
hombre_fatal 8y ago
> nothing more lively and current than watching senior citizens coo over monarchs. You underestimate the reach here. When it comes to Prince Harry and Meghan, it's like saying only senior citizens care about the Kardashians.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago

Why does the absence of posts indicate inactivity? He said in the article he uses it to like posts, but not create content. That doesn't sound inactive to me. In fact, Instagram basically encourages this type of account use. Any time you try to browse the site they try to get you to sign-up, even if you have zero intention of making your own posts. It sounds like the guy would have given the account name over either way, so why couldn't they have simply contacted him first and asked?

zamadatix 8y ago
"would you give up your account name" "No" "We have changed your account name" Is 10x worse than "we have changed your account name". If you're going to do something and there aren't any alternatives don't act like it's a question unless an extremely high ratio will say yes.
- littlestymaar 8y ago
  What about "would you give up your account name" "No" "Ok fine, I'll have to find a new name. Have a nice day sir.". This story pretty much sounds like “All animals are equals but some are more equals than others”[1] to me. [1]Georges Orwell Animal Farm (his best book IMO)
  - sbr464 8y ago
    Great reference. Perfectly fitting.
  - jdsully 8y ago
    Isn't the whole premise of royalty that we are explicitly not equal?
    - littlestymaar 8y ago
      But as far as I know, US citizens[1] don't recognize sovereignty of the British Crown since 1776… In that particular days, they even ratified a text saying “that all men are created equal”. [1] (and Instagram is owned byt a majority of American citizens)

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> Instagram has gotten so big that finding anything that's not a conflict is difficult. I don't understand online services' obsession with making sure public-facing identifiers are unique. This is not close to true in any other area. How many British guys can be named Harry? If there could be two World of Warcraft toons named Joe, maybe there wouldn't be so many xX_KillStealr69_Xx-es running around.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
Wouldn’t the same issue apply to email addresses or domain names? At some point there needs to be a unique identifier or ID to locate the right destination. How else could this be accomplished, especially when we are talking about URL structures that need to be somewhat short in length?
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  In this particular case, I'm guessing -- based on the URLs -- that in order to have the Instagram username "sussexroyal", it's also necessary to be located at www.instagram.com/sussexroyal . This is a design mistake. The URL identifier does not need to be the public-facing identifier, and it shouldn't be. You can have the Duke of Sussex as sussexroyal at www.instagram.com/y6llflk9 and the guy in Sussex who roots for the Royals as sussexroyal at www.instagram.com/y2q9g6uo . There is no need to have the public-facing identifier be the unique identifier, nor is there a good reason to do it. ICQ got this right, way back at the beginning. But somehow everyone forgot.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    But instagram.com/sussexroyal is a much more memorable URL than instagram.com/y2q9g6uo, and being able to find someone from remembering their handle is much better than remembering the handle and then wondering which of the multiple people called sussexroyal you're after when the search results come through Needless to say, the most prominent and memorable identifier being non-unique has all sorts of uses for trolls and spambots too.