13 ms·

Instagram Threatened Removal of Verified Status for Posting Snapchat Content

406 points by thescribbblr 7y ago

aphextim 7y ago
Not that I agree with this practice, but I've heard from people who stream on twitch that if you are streaming on their platform, you cannot stream to you-tube, d-live or other platforms and keep the affiliate/partner status which allows viewers to subscribe and donate via twitch currency to you. You may stream to multiple platforms at once, however you lose your ability to be verified on twitch by being an affiliate/partner. I see more and more of the large platforms taking this route and removing the verified/special perks for being on that particular platform if you are not keeping your content exclusive to them, in an attempt to keep the largest market share/content creators. In the end I think this will only drive the more independent creators to adopt smaller and more open platforms and the big platforms that are left will be an echo chamber more than ever.
- nmussy 7y ago
  AFAIK this only applies to partners who sign a contract with Twitch, but I assume there's some wiggle room, like in the revenue sharing. Affiliates are only forbidden from streaming on Twitch and other platforms simultaneously [0] [0]: https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/twitch-affiliate-program-faq https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/twitch-affiliate-program-fa... (Q. What do you mean by exclusivity for “Live Twitch Content”?)
- chmod775 7y ago
  They are afraid of other platforms, because they know their business will take a serious hit if there's ever serious competition. The cut they take off of subscriptions and donations is absolutely shady and unjustifiable. Add to that the long list of twitch "anti-features" and they're on a good course to become to Quora of streaming sites. Can't wait for just lurking to become "members only". Twitch would die in a heartbeat if they allowed multi-streaming (streaming to multiple platforms at the same time). Their product is too easily replicated and most people don't care about the platform - they follow their favorite content creators.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- mosselman 7y ago
  > Not that I agree with this practice, but ... http://www.beresources.co.uk/everything-before-but-is-bullshit/ http://www.beresources.co.uk/everything-before-but-is-bullsh...
  - jstanley 7y ago
    > Apologies to those of a sensitive nature for the graphicness (is that a word?) of the headline. However, it is true. The meaning of this excerpt would be exactly the same if the word "but" were used instead of "however" (which is, I suspect, why it was worded in this clumsy way - to avoid "but"). Are we to conclude that the author doesn't actually give a shit about the "graphicness" of the headline?
    - cdelsolar 7y ago
      what?
      - jasonlotito 7y ago
        The article is titled "Everything before ‘BUT’ is Bullshit." Basically, if you say but, whatever preceded it is bullshit. It calls people out for using it. So, when the author writes: "Apologies to those of a sensitive nature for the graphicness (is that a word?) of the headline. However, it is true.", it shows they aren't actually apologizing. Why? Because the word "however" could be changed with "but" and it would effectively be the same thing. Basically, that statement in the article is, according to the article, bullshit and combative.
- archi42 7y ago
  > In the end I think this will only drive the more independent creators to adopt smaller and more open platforms and the big platforms that are left will be an echo chamber more than ever. In an ideal world: Yes. In our world? Hm,... My intuition says "no".
- UserIsUnused 7y ago
  yes, but calling something "partner" or affiliate" is not the same as calling "verified"
mosselman 7y ago
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 anymore.
- dustingetz 7y ago
  Double-speak is def a problem and is not unique to tech. Maybe just the principal agent problem in disguise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
- im3w1l 7y ago
  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 now longer show up when people search for you. Maybe your sub becomes quarantined for an obviously for an obviously false reason (facts don't matter). Maybe you see more captchas. Maybe pages start loading more slowly for you. Maybe for your subscribers. Maybe you wont be able to show ads. Maybe it's the comments that get revoked. Maybe your account gets frozen and all your funds stolen. Most (all?) of those are actual things happening right now.
  - UserIsUnused 7y ago
    Just using private browsing and UBO makes you see more reCaptchas from google and sites using it
    - rahidz 7y ago
      Or to paraphrase: Company getting vast majority of its money from advertising and tracking, actively hampers experience of people who block advertising and trackers.
mc32 7y ago
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.
- srbby 7y ago
  "verified" means "good citizen of the platform"
  - mc32 7y ago
    Alternatively “top revenue generator, except where we disagree with them, except when we make special exceptions”.
    - collyw 7y ago
      To me it means "person full of their own self importance".
      - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
        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;)
        collyw 7y ago
        Agreed, but a check mark confirms it for me.
- vortico 7y ago
  When will Twitter re-open verifying? It's been closed for 2 years...
  - 7y ago
sailfast 7y ago
Removing links to other platforms is anti-competitive full stop. Threatening de-verification due to links is even worse. This is the behavior of monopolists. The FTC and existing anti-trust organizations would do well to return to their jobs and take a look at these practices broadly across the tech industry.
- echelon 7y ago
  Absolutely! I'm surprised you're the first one to call this out. In my mind this is how these companies see their platforms plucked from their hands and spun off as independent companies. This is incredibly unfair to users. It's a sign that these platforms have become a mafia protection racket. It's not just as if they're saying "If you consider the competition, you'll lose everything." They're actually doing this. Wow.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    The very first sentence of the OP article calls this out.
    - echelon 7y ago
      I want to see discussion here on HN as this is a special community that has participation from some of the brightest and most influential engineers, lawyers, -- many disciplines and backgrounds -- in the world. This should absolutely be a topic of discussion amongst us. Do we, as individuals with leverage and influence, support these actions? And if not, what can we do to help change the status quo and insure this doesn't happen again so easily? Crafting a response or opinion piece to submit to lawmakers and the FTC could hold a lot of power, especially if it is undersigned by many of us in the field.
- hamilyon2 7y ago
  Isn't instagram participation voluntary and free of charge? Monopoly over what? Everyone is free to move to another platform or start his own.
sandworm101 7y ago
One upon a time an evil file might be called 'vader' or 'skynet'. Now harry potter fans are senior enough to decide on project names. I feel old.
- danjin250 7y ago
  I think it's also that the "he who shall not be named" aspect here isn't shared by Vader or skynet
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    As Vader was a cover name for annikin. Iconic evil characters are all pretty similar. Jedi are essentially space wizards.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    There is always Hastur; Him Who Is Not to be Named. Oh shit, I did it!
fhennig 7y ago
Every now and then there are these news, where platform owners "abuse" their power on the platform to do something in their favor. I remember an example where HN discussed about how "Amazon's choice" doesn't mean that it's a good product, it's likely just a product which generates a lot of revenue for amazon. It should be of no surprise that plaform owners will behave in this way. I think the way forward should be protocols over platforms. ActivityPub over social networks. Matrix over instant messengers. Protocols are empowering. In the earlier days of the web there were many different protocols for different things people wanted to do, such as SMTP, FTP, HTTP etc.
- doubleemms 7y ago
  Yes! So much this! You can choose your email provider, or your cell phone carrier, and no matter who you choose, you'll still be able to email and text/call others (regardless of who _they_ choose). But you can't choose a new Facebook provider. There's no recourse if a given platform is behaving badly, and the network effect just reinforces their hold on users. Open protocols free users to make choices about providers and foster competition based on the service provided instead of having to "choose" to go where the people already are.
tjpnz 7y ago
Coming from a Facebook owned company is this really of surprise to anyone?
- JorgeGT 7y ago
  Next: you talked about WePay, so we burned all your Libra.
megadopechos 7y ago
What is posting Snapchat?
- ratsmack 7y ago
  I would assume it is posting pics and/or video from Snapchat sessions.
- rubbingalcohol 7y ago
  The title got truncated due to character limit - "posting Snapchat content"
- moftz 7y ago
  Snapchat content so things like posting screenshots or advertising their Snapchat handle.
blaqdu 7y ago
why would they not do it after they mic almost everything that snapchat comes out with?
fortran77 7y ago
Twitter started this whole thing. Originally, IIRC, "Verified" meant exactly that. You look at a twitter account of a Celebrity or CEO or poltician, and the blue check meant it was really them. Now it means it's really them _and_ they haven't said or done anything that the wrong people find offensive. Comedians get de-verified (or kicked off) for offending people if they offend the wrong people. (While others who do equally horrible things -- like when Spike Lee tweeted the address of a completely innocent and uninvolved person asking people to harass and threaten them, he was not removed or de-verified https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense-tweet-lawsuit-656118 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense... )
- dd36 7y ago
  It’s really them and they don’t belong to KKK?
- jimkleiber 7y ago
  And twitter started this whole thing because they were getting complaints from celebs and being sued by Tony LaRussa for account impersonation. I wonder if these networks even want people’s humanity verified on each account, seems like it would kill growth numbers. When Facebook started, most accounts were unofficially verified to be humans, as it was only open to people who had a .edu email address, which were mostly verified and given out by universities to real people. Then they opened it up and boom Facebook grew to ridiculous numbers. I’m waiting for one of the social networks to let anyone verify their humanity, Bumble does it, not sure why Twitter, FB, LinkedIn, and the others cant give this option. Maybe they don’t want to?
  - jimkleiber 7y ago
    TechCrunch article from 2009: https://techcrunch.com/2009/06/06/facing-lawsuits-and-complaints-from-celebs-twitter-launches-verified-accounts/ https://techcrunch.com/2009/06/06/facing-lawsuits-and-compla...
circa 7y ago
LOL the title should just be something like, "when stupid gets even more stupid"
danShumway 7y ago
> 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 allowed on Instagram" would be more honest, but also make it obvious what they're doing. So instead, they go out of their way to phrase it as something out of their control rather than as a deliberate policy.
- pulse7 7y ago
  ...and then when users start to put up such links they show you the real meaning of the phrase. At first sight it is "everything is allowed, just some things are not supported (yet)", but the real meaning is "linking to competitors is not allowed".
- LurkersWillLurk 7y ago
  It's also using passive voice. Consider: "We will terminate your verified status for adding links to one of our competitor's sites."
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    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/articles/PMC4981627/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981627/
    - tinkertamper 7y ago
      Where can I read more on this?
HiroshiSan 7y ago
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 picture of myself holding a paper with the ID code provided in the email (which I refused to do). When I tried asking why I was deactivated I was simply given a canned respond requesting that I give them a picture of myself with the code proving that I am indeed a real human being.
- jimkleiber 7y ago
  So, it seems, they were telling you that you need to verify your humanity to get your account back. But if you did verify it, do you think they would have given you a “verified” status?
- ritchje 7y ago
  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!
  - HiroshiSan 7y ago
    It was! Same day I made the account, all I did was follow people, never posted myself.
jimkleiber 7y ago
I’ve been waiting a long time for these platforms to let any of us human users verify our human identities. Not sure if they actually want to. Who wants to help me build a platform with only verified (you are the human you say you are) users?
rodmena 7y ago
Ahh... Facebook again.
ga-vu 7y ago
Not the first guy I hear saying this. Happened to a friend too. Probably not threatened... but "told"
dang 7y ago
Cribbed from a WSJ article which was discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21048093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21048093.

406 points by thescribbblr 7y ago

Not that I agree with this practice, but I've heard from people who stream on twitch that if you are streaming on their platform, you cannot stream to you-tube, d-live or other platforms and keep the affiliate/partner status which allows viewers to subscribe and donate via twitch currency to you. You may stream to multiple platforms at once, however you lose your ability to be verified on twitch by being an affiliate/partner. I see more and more of the large platforms taking this route and removing the verified/special perks for being on that particular platform if you are not keeping your content exclusive to them, in an attempt to keep the largest market share/content creators. In the end I think this will only drive the more independent creators to adopt smaller and more open platforms and the big platforms that are left will be an echo chamber more than ever.

nmussy 7y ago
AFAIK this only applies to partners who sign a contract with Twitch, but I assume there's some wiggle room, like in the revenue sharing. Affiliates are only forbidden from streaming on Twitch and other platforms simultaneously [0] [0]: https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/twitch-affiliate-program-faq https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/twitch-affiliate-program-fa... (Q. What do you mean by exclusivity for “Live Twitch Content”?)
chmod775 7y ago
They are afraid of other platforms, because they know their business will take a serious hit if there's ever serious competition. The cut they take off of subscriptions and donations is absolutely shady and unjustifiable. Add to that the long list of twitch "anti-features" and they're on a good course to become to Quora of streaming sites. Can't wait for just lurking to become "members only". Twitch would die in a heartbeat if they allowed multi-streaming (streaming to multiple platforms at the same time). Their product is too easily replicated and most people don't care about the platform - they follow their favorite content creators.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mosselman 7y ago
> Not that I agree with this practice, but ... http://www.beresources.co.uk/everything-before-but-is-bullshit/ http://www.beresources.co.uk/everything-before-but-is-bullsh...
- jstanley 7y ago
  > Apologies to those of a sensitive nature for the graphicness (is that a word?) of the headline. However, it is true. The meaning of this excerpt would be exactly the same if the word "but" were used instead of "however" (which is, I suspect, why it was worded in this clumsy way - to avoid "but"). Are we to conclude that the author doesn't actually give a shit about the "graphicness" of the headline?
  - cdelsolar 7y ago
    what?
    - jasonlotito 7y ago
      The article is titled "Everything before ‘BUT’ is Bullshit." Basically, if you say but, whatever preceded it is bullshit. It calls people out for using it. So, when the author writes: "Apologies to those of a sensitive nature for the graphicness (is that a word?) of the headline. However, it is true.", it shows they aren't actually apologizing. Why? Because the word "however" could be changed with "but" and it would effectively be the same thing. Basically, that statement in the article is, according to the article, bullshit and combative.
archi42 7y ago
> In the end I think this will only drive the more independent creators to adopt smaller and more open platforms and the big platforms that are left will be an echo chamber more than ever. In an ideal world: Yes. In our world? Hm,... My intuition says "no".
UserIsUnused 7y ago
yes, but calling something "partner" or affiliate" is not the same as calling "verified"

mosselman 7y ago

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 anymore.

dustingetz 7y ago
Double-speak is def a problem and is not unique to tech. Maybe just the principal agent problem in disguise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
im3w1l 7y ago
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 now longer show up when people search for you. Maybe your sub becomes quarantined for an obviously for an obviously false reason (facts don't matter). Maybe you see more captchas. Maybe pages start loading more slowly for you. Maybe for your subscribers. Maybe you wont be able to show ads. Maybe it's the comments that get revoked. Maybe your account gets frozen and all your funds stolen. Most (all?) of those are actual things happening right now.
- UserIsUnused 7y ago
  Just using private browsing and UBO makes you see more reCaptchas from google and sites using it
  - rahidz 7y ago
    Or to paraphrase: Company getting vast majority of its money from advertising and tracking, actively hampers experience of people who block advertising and trackers.

mc32 7y ago

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.

srbby 7y ago
"verified" means "good citizen of the platform"
- mc32 7y ago
  Alternatively “top revenue generator, except where we disagree with them, except when we make special exceptions”.
  - collyw 7y ago
    To me it means "person full of their own self importance".
    - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
      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;)
      - collyw 7y ago
        Agreed, but a check mark confirms it for me.
vortico 7y ago
When will Twitter re-open verifying? It's been closed for 2 years...
- 7y ago

sailfast 7y ago

Removing links to other platforms is anti-competitive full stop. Threatening de-verification due to links is even worse. This is the behavior of monopolists. The FTC and existing anti-trust organizations would do well to return to their jobs and take a look at these practices broadly across the tech industry.

echelon 7y ago
Absolutely! I'm surprised you're the first one to call this out. In my mind this is how these companies see their platforms plucked from their hands and spun off as independent companies. This is incredibly unfair to users. It's a sign that these platforms have become a mafia protection racket. It's not just as if they're saying "If you consider the competition, you'll lose everything." They're actually doing this. Wow.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The very first sentence of the OP article calls this out.
  - echelon 7y ago
    I want to see discussion here on HN as this is a special community that has participation from some of the brightest and most influential engineers, lawyers, -- many disciplines and backgrounds -- in the world. This should absolutely be a topic of discussion amongst us. Do we, as individuals with leverage and influence, support these actions? And if not, what can we do to help change the status quo and insure this doesn't happen again so easily? Crafting a response or opinion piece to submit to lawmakers and the FTC could hold a lot of power, especially if it is undersigned by many of us in the field.
hamilyon2 7y ago
Isn't instagram participation voluntary and free of charge? Monopoly over what? Everyone is free to move to another platform or start his own.

sandworm101 7y ago

One upon a time an evil file might be called 'vader' or 'skynet'. Now harry potter fans are senior enough to decide on project names. I feel old.

danjin250 7y ago
I think it's also that the "he who shall not be named" aspect here isn't shared by Vader or skynet
- sandworm101 7y ago
  As Vader was a cover name for annikin. Iconic evil characters are all pretty similar. Jedi are essentially space wizards.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  There is always Hastur; Him Who Is Not to be Named. Oh shit, I did it!

fhennig 7y ago

Every now and then there are these news, where platform owners "abuse" their power on the platform to do something in their favor. I remember an example where HN discussed about how "Amazon's choice" doesn't mean that it's a good product, it's likely just a product which generates a lot of revenue for amazon. It should be of no surprise that plaform owners will behave in this way. I think the way forward should be protocols over platforms. ActivityPub over social networks. Matrix over instant messengers. Protocols are empowering. In the earlier days of the web there were many different protocols for different things people wanted to do, such as SMTP, FTP, HTTP etc.

doubleemms 7y ago
Yes! So much this! You can choose your email provider, or your cell phone carrier, and no matter who you choose, you'll still be able to email and text/call others (regardless of who _they_ choose). But you can't choose a new Facebook provider. There's no recourse if a given platform is behaving badly, and the network effect just reinforces their hold on users. Open protocols free users to make choices about providers and foster competition based on the service provided instead of having to "choose" to go where the people already are.

tjpnz 7y ago

Coming from a Facebook owned company is this really of surprise to anyone?

JorgeGT 7y ago
Next: you talked about WePay, so we burned all your Libra.

megadopechos 7y ago

What is posting Snapchat?

ratsmack 7y ago
I would assume it is posting pics and/or video from Snapchat sessions.
rubbingalcohol 7y ago
The title got truncated due to character limit - "posting Snapchat content"
moftz 7y ago
Snapchat content so things like posting screenshots or advertising their Snapchat handle.

blaqdu 7y ago

why would they not do it after they mic almost everything that snapchat comes out with?

fortran77 7y ago

Twitter started this whole thing. Originally, IIRC, "Verified" meant exactly that. You look at a twitter account of a Celebrity or CEO or poltician, and the blue check meant it was really them. Now it means it's really them _and_ they haven't said or done anything that the wrong people find offensive. Comedians get de-verified (or kicked off) for offending people if they offend the wrong people. (While others who do equally horrible things -- like when Spike Lee tweeted the address of a completely innocent and uninvolved person asking people to harass and threaten them, he was not removed or de-verified https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense-tweet-lawsuit-656118 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense... )

dd36 7y ago
It’s really them and they don’t belong to KKK?
jimkleiber 7y ago
And twitter started this whole thing because they were getting complaints from celebs and being sued by Tony LaRussa for account impersonation. I wonder if these networks even want people’s humanity verified on each account, seems like it would kill growth numbers. When Facebook started, most accounts were unofficially verified to be humans, as it was only open to people who had a .edu email address, which were mostly verified and given out by universities to real people. Then they opened it up and boom Facebook grew to ridiculous numbers. I’m waiting for one of the social networks to let anyone verify their humanity, Bumble does it, not sure why Twitter, FB, LinkedIn, and the others cant give this option. Maybe they don’t want to?
- jimkleiber 7y ago
  TechCrunch article from 2009: https://techcrunch.com/2009/06/06/facing-lawsuits-and-complaints-from-celebs-twitter-launches-verified-accounts/ https://techcrunch.com/2009/06/06/facing-lawsuits-and-compla...

circa 7y ago

LOL the title should just be something like, "when stupid gets even more stupid"

danShumway 7y ago

> 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 allowed on Instagram" would be more honest, but also make it obvious what they're doing. So instead, they go out of their way to phrase it as something out of their control rather than as a deliberate policy.

pulse7 7y ago
...and then when users start to put up such links they show you the real meaning of the phrase. At first sight it is "everything is allowed, just some things are not supported (yet)", but the real meaning is "linking to competitors is not allowed".
LurkersWillLurk 7y ago
It's also using passive voice. Consider: "We will terminate your verified status for adding links to one of our competitor's sites."
- ineedasername 7y ago
  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/articles/PMC4981627/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981627/
  - tinkertamper 7y ago
    Where can I read more on this?

HiroshiSan 7y ago

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 picture of myself holding a paper with the ID code provided in the email (which I refused to do). When I tried asking why I was deactivated I was simply given a canned respond requesting that I give them a picture of myself with the code proving that I am indeed a real human being.

jimkleiber 7y ago
So, it seems, they were telling you that you need to verify your humanity to get your account back. But if you did verify it, do you think they would have given you a “verified” status?
ritchje 7y ago
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!
- HiroshiSan 7y ago
  It was! Same day I made the account, all I did was follow people, never posted myself.

jimkleiber 7y ago

I’ve been waiting a long time for these platforms to let any of us human users verify our human identities. Not sure if they actually want to. Who wants to help me build a platform with only verified (you are the human you say you are) users?

rodmena 7y ago

Ahh... Facebook again.

ga-vu 7y ago

Not the first guy I hear saying this. Happened to a friend too. Probably not threatened... but "told"

dang 7y ago

Cribbed from a WSJ article which was discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21048093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21048093.