10 ms·

> 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

> 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?
    - asdf21 7y ago
      A masters program in forensics..
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      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/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981627/
  - btrask 7y ago
    > When someone is lying, the passive voice is a very common choice of words. The passive voice was used to write this sentence.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      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 https://datayze.com/passive-voice-detector.php Fun fact: That detector uses zombies!
privateSFacct 7y ago
Isn't inviting folks to add you on another service how most of the scam / paid date etc folks operate? I used to get messages from random women asking me to add them on other services a fair bit.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  Sure. (I mean, probably; I'm not an expert.) And if Instagram came out and said that that was not allowed then this point would be moot. The objection (in this subthread) isn't that they're banning the behavior, it's that they're being dishonest about it.
- danShumway 7y ago
  Even assuming that's a valid reason to restrict a competitor, the phrasing is still deceptive. If Instagram stands by their decision to block third-party links, then they should phrase it as, "we block third-party links", not "they're not currently supported."
- swebs 7y ago
  >paid date Well that's one way to phrase it.
hammock 7y ago
That's a narrow view of the word "support." Her father doesn't support her meth addiction.
- cat199 7y ago
  original point doesn't dispute that it is a 'narrow view', however, but that they are playing on ambiguity within the wider connotations since the nominal meaning in a tech context is 'support techically' rather than 'morally','ethically', etc.
- jgtrosh 7y ago
  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.
elmo2you 7y ago
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 in the USA also, but companies like these ought to be publicly prosecuted for this elsewhere. The real problem is that big tech companies have vast resources (including economical and political influence) and all kind of (international) legal tricks up their sleeves, shielding them from the legal scrutiny they deserve. However, the clock is ticking. At some point, the net will close around them.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  What law is being broken? This is their platform to do with as they please. Nobody has a contractual agreement whereby Facebook agrees to host any and all content. They can be as partial and capricious as they desire. That is the price for abandoning open protocols.
  - elmo2you 7y ago
    "it is forbidden by law to arbitrarily discriminate consumers" (in many countries with a sane legal system) It is a common and stubborn misconception that laws like these somehow do not apply to big (international) tech companies. It is more the product of cultural acceptance of a reality that has existed for long time. Maybe you are right about this, within the USA. But than that would say more about the legal reality within the USA, rather than globally.
    - JoshTriplett 7y ago
      There's a lot of unstated meaning wrapped up in "arbitrarily" there. You can obviously treat customers differently based on whether they pay or not, and you can obviously have terms that say what you can and can't post on the platform (and apply moderation accordingly). Otherwise you couldn't maintain any kind of forum or communication platform. Saying you can't post links to other services may be distasteful, but shouldn't be illegal in any reasonable legal jurisdiction.
greggyb 7y ago
While I agree with the technical criticism you level, I think the more important thing is whether the truth of the matter is: 1. "Links asking someone to add you on another service are not allowed on Instagram." or 2. "Links asking someone to add you on a service not owned by Facebook are not allowed on Instagram." "Support" vs "allowed" seems to me to be a distraction from the universality of that 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?
  - asdf21 7y ago
    A masters program in forensics..
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    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/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981627/
- btrask 7y ago
  > When someone is lying, the passive voice is a very common choice of words. The passive voice was used to write this sentence.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    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 https://datayze.com/passive-voice-detector.php Fun fact: That detector uses zombies!

privateSFacct 7y ago

Isn't inviting folks to add you on another service how most of the scam / paid date etc folks operate? I used to get messages from random women asking me to add them on other services a fair bit.

yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
Sure. (I mean, probably; I'm not an expert.) And if Instagram came out and said that that was not allowed then this point would be moot. The objection (in this subthread) isn't that they're banning the behavior, it's that they're being dishonest about it.
danShumway 7y ago
Even assuming that's a valid reason to restrict a competitor, the phrasing is still deceptive. If Instagram stands by their decision to block third-party links, then they should phrase it as, "we block third-party links", not "they're not currently supported."
swebs 7y ago
>paid date Well that's one way to phrase it.

hammock 7y ago

That's a narrow view of the word "support." Her father doesn't support her meth addiction.

cat199 7y ago
original point doesn't dispute that it is a 'narrow view', however, but that they are playing on ambiguity within the wider connotations since the nominal meaning in a tech context is 'support techically' rather than 'morally','ethically', etc.
jgtrosh 7y ago
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.

elmo2you 7y ago

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 in the USA also, but companies like these ought to be publicly prosecuted for this elsewhere. The real problem is that big tech companies have vast resources (including economical and political influence) and all kind of (international) legal tricks up their sleeves, shielding them from the legal scrutiny they deserve. However, the clock is ticking. At some point, the net will close around them.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
What law is being broken? This is their platform to do with as they please. Nobody has a contractual agreement whereby Facebook agrees to host any and all content. They can be as partial and capricious as they desire. That is the price for abandoning open protocols.
- elmo2you 7y ago
  "it is forbidden by law to arbitrarily discriminate consumers" (in many countries with a sane legal system) It is a common and stubborn misconception that laws like these somehow do not apply to big (international) tech companies. It is more the product of cultural acceptance of a reality that has existed for long time. Maybe you are right about this, within the USA. But than that would say more about the legal reality within the USA, rather than globally.
  - JoshTriplett 7y ago
    There's a lot of unstated meaning wrapped up in "arbitrarily" there. You can obviously treat customers differently based on whether they pay or not, and you can obviously have terms that say what you can and can't post on the platform (and apply moderation accordingly). Otherwise you couldn't maintain any kind of forum or communication platform. Saying you can't post links to other services may be distasteful, but shouldn't be illegal in any reasonable legal jurisdiction.

greggyb 7y ago

While I agree with the technical criticism you level, I think the more important thing is whether the truth of the matter is: 1. "Links asking someone to add you on another service are not allowed on Instagram." or 2. "Links asking someone to add you on a service not owned by Facebook are not allowed on Instagram." "Support" vs "allowed" seems to me to be a distraction from the universality of that policy.