4 ms·

> “This is to help people see photos on Instagram and then understand how to get the best Instagram experience by being part of the community, connecting and in

by twic 7y ago

> “This is to help people see photos on Instagram and then understand how to get the best Instagram experience by being part of the community, connecting and interacting with the people and things they love,” the company told Adweek. Why would you say something like this? And why, as a journalist, would you report it? It's a transparent lie; nobody is going to be taken in by it. So why bother even saying it?

gnrlst 7y ago
Reminds me a lot of the now infamous reddit EA comment: "The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes. As for cost,..."
- deminature 7y ago
  Perhaps I'm voluntarily jumping in front a bus here, but I'm not sure there's anything inherently wrong with requiring players to play for a certain number of hours to unlock multiplayer features. Call of Duty has been doing this since 2007, and is the most popular multiplayer game on the planet.
  - robrtsql 7y ago
    A certain number of hours for some features is reasonable. But if I recall correctly, the controversy was that you had to play for 40 hours in order to unlock just one of these characters. The community got mad when they tried to say this was to cultivate "a sense of accomplishment" when the goal was really to encourage players to buy lootboxes in order to skip the grind.
save_ferris 7y ago
It’s usually SOP for outlets to publish statements from the subjects of their reporting, however banal or ridiculous they may be. > nobody is going to be taken in by it. Unfortunately, you don’t know that to be true. Relatives I’ve spoken with who own FB stock love to read statements like this to justify their position.
- papln 7y ago
  SOP doesn't make it right. A journalist could say "A spokesperson made an unrelated comment in leiu of answering the question."
  - TearsInTheRain 7y ago
    There should be some journalism that refrains from editorializing everything
  - save_ferris 7y ago
    Which, in this era especially, might prompt a response from said entity arguing that the journalist is biased and corrupt. The lack of transparency around speech in your case only works against journalists when their credibility is questioned. They gain nothing omitting frivolous statements as opposed to printing them and letting members of the public point out how stupid they are.
- dmix 7y ago
  The percentage of average people reading this who are shareholders are minuscule. All this says to people is that Instagram is getting more annoying.
Reedx 7y ago
I've been wondering about this in regards to how CA is reframing "rolling blackouts" as "de-energization areas". It seems so blatantly ridiculous, and I feel like it does more harm than good, but they must have reason to think otherwise?
- RandallBrown 7y ago
  Isn't it the reasoning behind the blackouts? I thought rolling blackouts were typically due to not having enough power generation. What's happening now is related to preventing fires isn't it?
  - papln 7y ago
    "de-energization" doesn't say anything about the reason either. Using overly-formal worlds is PR spin tactic to suppress the connotation of the common term, and psedo-justify the action by connoting scientific credibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_blackout
    - selectodude 7y ago
      PG&E has been pretty clear about the fact that their unlimited financial exposure to fire damage is the core cause of these blackouts. Rolling blackouts implies some sort of issue with power generation, which isn’t the actual cause.
- Trav5 7y ago
  That is an odd word. Seems "de-energized areas" would be better. De-energizaton is the action that was taken on the area. I agree with the other commentor. This term indicates it was done on purpose. It describes the stare of the power line. I think it's better than blackout.
- akudha 7y ago
  Carlin said it best - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY
newsgremlin 7y ago
Anytime I read corporate speak like this I completely tune out, I just simply don't take it for fact. You see most companies communicate like this, and many get caught up in their own contradictions and hypocrisy.
kstenerud 7y ago
Because it gives you plausible deniability, and a way to answer questions without actually saying anything. This is important from a corporate legal standpoint because it makes you as slippery as possible. Words have a tendency to come back to haunt you.
stjohnswarts 7y ago
It's the work of the Zucc, it's not enough that they can feed you ads, it's essential they know every move you make on the web with a GUID
dwd 7y ago
It's not a lie (as that statement is possibly true), but it is a deception as it doesn't tell the whole story. "So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view." I think we'll find that their numbers are saying the loss of revenue of people leaving because they have to always login is far less than the uptick in revenue to be made from the changes this will allow. They rolled this out weeks ago in Australia, and would have been watching for the backlash. I think (the following is pure speculation) this is just a first step of a number of changes around monetisation. This basically locks the backdoor, where they prevent people not on the platform from browsing feeds for free. The real change is going to be when users (celebrities and businesses mostly) find they have to pay to reach all of their followers (who surprise, surprise now have to be logged in). They may not require "boosting" for under 1000 (or even 10,000) followers which will keep most users and wannabee influencers on the platform, even if they have to give a couple of dollars to Instagram when they push a product. You may find the advertisers end up just paying more. It's the mega-users with multi-million followers they want to monetise, Users who get paid 10-100s thousands of dollars per post where Instagram doesn't get a cut despite being the delivery platform. Compared to what it costs for advertising on traditional media such as radio or TV, even a dollar to reach 10,000 followers would be nothing. But you can't enforce payment when their followers can simply logout and view the feed for free. I would expect the popup appearing immediately rather than after a few scrolls to be implemented soon.

by twic 7y ago

gnrlst 7y ago

Reminds me a lot of the now infamous reddit EA comment: "The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes. As for cost,..."

deminature 7y ago
Perhaps I'm voluntarily jumping in front a bus here, but I'm not sure there's anything inherently wrong with requiring players to play for a certain number of hours to unlock multiplayer features. Call of Duty has been doing this since 2007, and is the most popular multiplayer game on the planet.
- robrtsql 7y ago
  A certain number of hours for some features is reasonable. But if I recall correctly, the controversy was that you had to play for 40 hours in order to unlock just one of these characters. The community got mad when they tried to say this was to cultivate "a sense of accomplishment" when the goal was really to encourage players to buy lootboxes in order to skip the grind.

save_ferris 7y ago

It’s usually SOP for outlets to publish statements from the subjects of their reporting, however banal or ridiculous they may be. > nobody is going to be taken in by it. Unfortunately, you don’t know that to be true. Relatives I’ve spoken with who own FB stock love to read statements like this to justify their position.

papln 7y ago
SOP doesn't make it right. A journalist could say "A spokesperson made an unrelated comment in leiu of answering the question."
- TearsInTheRain 7y ago
  There should be some journalism that refrains from editorializing everything
- save_ferris 7y ago
  Which, in this era especially, might prompt a response from said entity arguing that the journalist is biased and corrupt. The lack of transparency around speech in your case only works against journalists when their credibility is questioned. They gain nothing omitting frivolous statements as opposed to printing them and letting members of the public point out how stupid they are.
dmix 7y ago
The percentage of average people reading this who are shareholders are minuscule. All this says to people is that Instagram is getting more annoying.

Reedx 7y ago

I've been wondering about this in regards to how CA is reframing "rolling blackouts" as "de-energization areas". It seems so blatantly ridiculous, and I feel like it does more harm than good, but they must have reason to think otherwise?

RandallBrown 7y ago
Isn't it the reasoning behind the blackouts? I thought rolling blackouts were typically due to not having enough power generation. What's happening now is related to preventing fires isn't it?
- papln 7y ago
  "de-energization" doesn't say anything about the reason either. Using overly-formal worlds is PR spin tactic to suppress the connotation of the common term, and psedo-justify the action by connoting scientific credibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_blackout
  - selectodude 7y ago
    PG&E has been pretty clear about the fact that their unlimited financial exposure to fire damage is the core cause of these blackouts. Rolling blackouts implies some sort of issue with power generation, which isn’t the actual cause.
Trav5 7y ago
That is an odd word. Seems "de-energized areas" would be better. De-energizaton is the action that was taken on the area. I agree with the other commentor. This term indicates it was done on purpose. It describes the stare of the power line. I think it's better than blackout.
akudha 7y ago
Carlin said it best - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY

newsgremlin 7y ago

Anytime I read corporate speak like this I completely tune out, I just simply don't take it for fact. You see most companies communicate like this, and many get caught up in their own contradictions and hypocrisy.

kstenerud 7y ago

Because it gives you plausible deniability, and a way to answer questions without actually saying anything. This is important from a corporate legal standpoint because it makes you as slippery as possible. Words have a tendency to come back to haunt you.

stjohnswarts 7y ago

It's the work of the Zucc, it's not enough that they can feed you ads, it's essential they know every move you make on the web with a GUID

dwd 7y ago

It's not a lie (as that statement is possibly true), but it is a deception as it doesn't tell the whole story. "So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view." I think we'll find that their numbers are saying the loss of revenue of people leaving because they have to always login is far less than the uptick in revenue to be made from the changes this will allow. They rolled this out weeks ago in Australia, and would have been watching for the backlash. I think (the following is pure speculation) this is just a first step of a number of changes around monetisation. This basically locks the backdoor, where they prevent people not on the platform from browsing feeds for free. The real change is going to be when users (celebrities and businesses mostly) find they have to pay to reach all of their followers (who surprise, surprise now have to be logged in). They may not require "boosting" for under 1000 (or even 10,000) followers which will keep most users and wannabee influencers on the platform, even if they have to give a couple of dollars to Instagram when they push a product. You may find the advertisers end up just paying more. It's the mega-users with multi-million followers they want to monetise, Users who get paid 10-100s thousands of dollars per post where Instagram doesn't get a cut despite being the delivery platform. Compared to what it costs for advertising on traditional media such as radio or TV, even a dollar to reach 10,000 followers would be nothing. But you can't enforce payment when their followers can simply logout and view the feed for free. I would expect the popup appearing immediately rather than after a few scrolls to be implemented soon.