19 ms·

"Wow, fuck you. I just wanted to look at cats." "Well, fuck you, too. We're here to sell ads." It's not about dark patterns, that's just a second-order effect

"Wow, fuck you. I just wanted to look at cats." "Well, fuck you, too. We're here to sell ads." It's not about dark patterns, that's just a second-order effect. It was never about dark patterns. This is the implied agreement. You understand it, or you don't. And if you don't, I guess you haven't been on the web in the past decade or something. What? You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure and staffing so you can sit at home and spend your time looking at cats for free? No, they have your attention and they're going to connect you to organizations who will pay for it.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
They can still have ads for people that don't create an account. I think the point you are trying to make is that people are demanding free (as in beer) content, a la WinAmp of the 1990's. In the past 20 years, we've come around out of that greedy phase and have come to accept a certain amount of advertising for content. But when the non-free content dominates the free content (e.g. pinterest's SEO), it's a fuck you pattern and not consumer greed. EDIT: IMHO
- mdavis6890 5y ago
  An important point is that WinAmp was not hosting content, so the cost was limited to the relatively small development cost. And there's still lots of that around. Once you get into actual hosting, it's very hard to get past a small number of users without a lot of funding. And since a lot of users don't want to pay, well...
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    That's a good point. I was referring to the sentiment at the time where people thought there was nothing wrong with sharing music files that one person paid for and then millions copied, rather than buy. Putting aside the ethics of $1/song as good or bad, there was a sense of entitlement that I think has been tempered. Maybe?
w0de0 5y ago
"All of this is for the very best end, for if there is a volcano at Lisbon, it could be in no other spot; for it is impossible but things should be as they are, for everything is for the best."
- meepmorp 5y ago
  Pangloss knew what was up
omgwtfbbq 5y ago
Of course it is and if you can't see that you probably work there implementing dark patterns.
andai 5y ago
Kinda offtopic but Instagram's ads changed my attitude towards ads, and my attitude towards Facebook's creepy level of insight into my life and personality. If they have that data anyway -- and hundreds of companies do -- I might as well benefit from it, and Instagram's ads were the first ones that I actually found interesting. First of all, it was obvious when something was an ad. Second, they weren't intrusive or obnoxious. And third, they showed me cool stuff I actually wanted to buy! It was actually an enjoyable experience and that's so weird to say about ads. The surveillance part still creeps me the hell out, but if they're gonna do it anyway they might as well use that data to benefit my life. (On that note, I often find myself wishing I could ask the NSA for a copy of an old message or photo...)
- derangedHorse 5y ago
  I second this, the only ads I’ve ever willingly clicked/tapped on with the intention of buying were from Instagram
  - eitland 5y ago
    And that is quite a feat given how little information I hace willingly given Facebook compared to how I - until a few years ago - more or less volunteeres my data to Google. Google knew everything about it and yet couldn't manage to serve anything but the sleaziest ads. Instagram got the table scraps and yet convinced me to buy at least one thing that I'm actually happy with.
    - mszcz 5y ago
      Yep, seconded. Stopped using FB years ago and I use Instagram for two of my passions - tiny houses and boobs. And, somehow, Instagram figured out that I wanted to buy a Remarkable 2 ;) But yeah, joking aside, Instagram was the one of few places I actually saw ads of things I wanted to buy. Sure, the ads tried to rip my eyes out for those products ($50 for a product I found for $5) but still...
      - andai 5y ago
xiphias2 5y ago
Facebook/Mark Zuckeberg didn't spend $1B on the infrastructure of Instagram. He bought the network effect that he knew is impossible to beat by a better product.
hhs 5y ago
Seems this would fit with surveillance capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
c7DJTLrn 5y ago
If that's the case then Instagram should not entice people in by temporarily granting access. It should be upfront about requiring an account.
- seanp2k2 5y ago
  And furthermore all the content should be delisted from Google for cloaking https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/guidelines/cloaking https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/guideline...
tshaddox 5y ago
> What? You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure and staffing so you can sit at home and spend your time looking at cats for free? Is that really fair? Would there be nowhere to see pictures of cats without their millions of dollars in infrastructure and staffing? Or could it be that their millions of dollars in infrastructure and staffing for selling ads is the reason the goto place for pictures of cats is BigTechCo instead of a ton of smaller forums and communities each of which is relatively inexpensive to operate.
- whoisjuan 5y ago
  Aggregation and distribution are virtues of large communities, not small ones. The sophistication of Facebok's business is what allows the creation and distribution of content. I agree that if Facebook, Snap, Pinterest, Reddit, Nextdoor, Twitter etc, didn't exist, small communities would fill that void... But they would do through a fragmented and siloed user experience that is hardly discoverable for the majority of the connected world. This is the equivalent of running a taxi business vs running an airline. Sure, a taxi can fulfill several transportation needs but it could never replace what an airline does.
  - bun_at_work 5y ago
    Once upon a time Google Search was there to help you find those small online communities.
    - sodality2 5y ago
      You're moving the centralization problem to google, then.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Godel_unicode 5y ago
    > ...small communities would fill that void. For a short time, and the overwhelming majority of people would have no idea that content exists. Then some enterprising startup founder would realize that there's a huge market for those exact services, and history would slowly repeat (rhyme with?) itself. This free content, sans big tech pipedream is just that. Sorry if that makes you sad.
e12e 5y ago
> You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure and staffing so you can sit at home and spend your time looking at cats for free? No, they have your attention and they're going to connect you to organizations who will pay for it. "The infrastructure" to share cat pictures cost peanuts. It's the addictive dark patterns and montezation/tracking that costs millions. That's the irony.
- cyrux004 5y ago
  Shouldnt you include engineers compensation in "The infrastructure" thats where a lot of money goes.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    A bloated payroll to support a bloated advertising platform with a bloated AI-based recommendation algorithm when all it should be doing is loading a descending-order list of most recent submissions meeting the category criteria.... Don't talk about costs, this crap is self-inflicted
    - saurik 5y ago
      The hosting and bandwidth costs of images and especially video is non-trivial. I agree that the vast majority of the costs of these overly-large companies comes from what happens while trying to make them profitable, and then all of the engineering work that goes into that... but that all starts because running the site in the first place wasn't free and you have to do something to make them at least sustainable, with your "obvious" options being to either: 1) ask for donations (which likely won't pay for the site if you get popular: I know this from experience); 2) require people to pay some small subscription fee (which will make the site less fun for everyone); 3) pray ubiquitous micropayments eventually happens (i work on this problem as part of Orchid, but it still hasn't happened ;P); 4) sell "something else" to whales, like t-shirts or the ability to "guild" messages (the strategies reddit was trying to do as they resisted ads for a long time... maybe these work well enough?); or 5) start trying to sell ads and become the thing you hate. The only other strategies I have seen tend to either drag you towards #5 or simply cause other dark patterns, such as taking a cut of "tips" (what TikTok and Twitch do), which at bare minimum incentivizes the "don't you dare talk about alternative payment systems in our ecosystem: all payments must go through us" model sin (which can be fought against if you have a lot of willpower and remain private--I never required this with Cydia as I considered it the original sin my entire market existed to undermine--but I see the motivation and it feels kind of inevitable). I personally bet the only real "correct" solution is essentially #3... if we ever get to the point where the fees for that are as easy to pay and as low as the fees you pay for electricity (which works on a similar model).
thesausageking 5y ago
Ads are fine. The "fuck you" pattern is letting you see the cat picture for 5 seconds before covering it up and requiring you to create an account and share your data with Facebook before you can see it.
- andrewmcwatters 5y ago
  Everyone everywhere has realized throughout the ages that conversion of anything is higher when you get a demo of the product. This isn't a "fuck you" pattern. They gave you a social media Costco food sample.
  - Falling3 5y ago
    Except Costco is very upfront and honest about what a sample is and how it works. The food-based analogy would be they offer you an entire meal then slap you after you take your first small bite letting you know you have to pay to continue eating.
  - thesausageking 5y ago
    I have no doubt it converts better. Facebook are masters at using little dopamine hits and denials to get users to do whatever they want. It’s still an obnoxious thing to do, which is the point of the article.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    > Everyone everywhere has realized throughout the ages that conversion of anything is higher when you get a demo of the product. Apparently not video games. Not many game companies offer demos anymore because they actually hurt sales.
    - webmaven 5y ago
      > > Everyone everywhere has realized throughout the ages that conversion of anything is higher when you get a demo of the product. > Apparently not video games. Not many game companies offer demos anymore because they actually hurt sales. That's interesting. Is that because the demo cannibalizes sales (ie. people have enough fun just playing the demo they don't feel compelled to buy the game), or because the demo undermines the game's value proposition (ie. people don't buy the crappy game because the demo makes the crappiness evident)?
ajharrison 5y ago
Thank you! The entitlement is disgusting.
charwalker 5y ago
Either you're the customer or you're the product. Recognizing that nearly all internet companies do this allows you to identify what level you're comfortable with and duck out or move on if needed. It's always good to review your social media habits and scale back. I recommend doing this the same time you're spring cleaning or after you prep for winter. Also go through and unsubscribe from emails and update passwords.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  > Either you're the customer or you're the product. Or you're both. Or perhaps none. I kinda like that we have now such a big, visible and studied echosystem where we'll see any pattern working at a significant scale. Any kind of dichotomy just doesn't cut it anymore I think.
pnt12 5y ago
That's quite a ridiculous claim. Surely they can display ads to anonymous users, That's not hard at all. But then they can't track you and profile you, which is a big no. Now is it fair for a company to track and shape the behavior of millions of people?
arrosenberg 5y ago
> This is the implied agreement. You understand it, or you don't. I'm fine with businesses who use that model and make it clear. Those kinds of tactics are galling coming from a company whose literal mission statement is "Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together." If you want people to make an account, make a more compelling business proposition. Gatekeeping seems like the most vulnerable, monopolistic position to take.
isaacremuant 5y ago
Until they populate all the top search results with those patterns. This apologies for any unethical practice by companies in Reddit/HNs are really interesting. They side completely with the authorities. Properly trained.
grishka 5y ago
I'm pretty sure that if they had non-targeted (or at least targeted not based on tracking), unobtrusive ads, and zero dark patterns, they would've been still earning enough money to cover their expenses and then some. Unfortunately, they've set out to earn all the money in the world for no benefit to anyone at all.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  If you manage to build a large enough empire, then... and only then, can you make the world a better place.
ozim 5y ago
People constantly think that Facebook/Insta/Google is trying to do good things for the users or that whatever is good for users is good for BigCo-s. So sometimes it is true, but most of the time it is not and BigCo-s have to push users to do things.
rq1 5y ago
1/ They bait people in to destroy any sane competition. Then they milk them. 2/ Well fuck you even further and go to hell for defending such behaviours. 3/ ps. Their infra is ridiculous. A team of 100-120 engineers can do way better. They can’t get their user base though because of 1/
teawrecks 5y ago
"X is self evident, but maybe not to you," seems to me like a fundamentally flawed argument.
panny 5y ago
>You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure You almost had me, right up to this point. Then I realized you are posting pointed sarcasm about instagram's owners.
jude- 5y ago
You can advertise without abusing the user.
NelsonMinar 5y ago
The users of Instagram create the value though. The ones posting the cat pictures.
the_gipsy 5y ago
The bait and switch. You used to be able to view links of public post. The bigger the userbase grows, the bigger the fuckyous they can give the rest. It’s no longer “hey join us, we have cool stuff”, it’s “fuck you, we already got your friends, whatcha gonna do”. We can complain about that, right?
stana 5y ago
There seem to be many non tech savvy people who were shocked by docos like Social Dilemma and don't understand they are the product. They think they are 'just looking at cats'. Maybe these companies should clearly display on their front page they in personal data collection and targeted advertising business.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
XorNot 5y ago
So how does this explain why Windows 10, which I have paid like $150 for per license, is now infested with ads, tracking and online presence - and close to impossible to buy without that. They aren't even trying to put a $ figure on what they think it's worth - because they can't be stopped from doing it. There is no implied agreement, it's exactly as stated.
- 6502nerdface 5y ago
  I guess someone could argue that it only costs $150 because of the ads. Windows 95 cost well over twice that when it was launched (inflation adjusted). Maybe in the same way that airfares are way cheaper than they were in the 90s, but with much crappier included service.
  - jonathankoren 5y ago
    Let’s be honest though. Windows is supported through OEM licenses. M$ (yeah, I’m dusting this off here, due to the context) isn’t strapped for cash.
    - chrisweekly 5y ago
      scrapped -> strapped
      - jonathankoren 5y ago
        ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I’m on mobile. Whatever
  - esperent 5y ago
    How many more copies of windows 10 were sold compared to Windows 95?
    - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      How many more engineers work on Windows 10 compared to Windows 95?
emptyparadise 5y ago
"No, fuck you. The internet was never meant to be this." I understand how this shitty agreement came to be but that doesn't mean that I like having my experience online be a metaphorical middle finger. They spent billions in infrastructure and staffing to hijack the free internet where I could look at cat pictures on cat picture websites that had cat pictures as the goal, all so they could show me ads, and they have the nerve to say that I'm in the wrong for not being happy about that?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sriku 5y ago
It's not just about ads .. they can just show them to this visitor if it was. It's about targeted ads. They have slightly limited ability to target if the viewer doesn't sign in .. for which the viewer needs to accept their T&C .. which is needed for them so someone doesn't sue them for invading their privacy without their consent. IANAL so I'm not sure whether such a suit will stand in any court.
MikeUt 5y ago
So did Instagram employ these fuck-you patterns from the start, or did they pretend to be friendly until they'd gotten enough market share and network effects? That's called bait & switch, and is (if not legally in this case, then morally) rightly considered fraud.
wruza 5y ago
This company neither has these cats, nor creates a content with them. Sites with images are full of cats and ads, but only instagram is arrogant enough to demand your ids. It’s easy to fuck the instagram, really, because it barely has anything of value that is not reposted elsewhere, or just similar. I’d even have a profile on it if it weren’t such a moron (judging by other sites with cats, where I register eventually after some lurking). They don’t know basic internet rules and deserve everything said above and below.
jrm4 5y ago
Okay, then they need to SAY THAT. All of them need to be CLEAR about what their business model is and how it works, and do not give any mess about "free markets" or "trade secrets" here, they have captured too much attention to be treated with kid gloves.
josefx 5y ago
Wait, ad click through tracking now only works for registered users? When did that change? More importantly, what are all these ads doing on pages that don't require me to login?
errantmind 5y ago
Same thing happened with cable TV back in the day. It is about extracting as Mich value as most people will tolerate. There is no escaping ads if a company isn't principally opposed to them and charges directly for their product
sheinsheish 5y ago
“Wow fuck you, I don’t.”
pronlover723 5y ago
How is Instagram's profitability? Like the OP sometimes I'd like to look at a feed anonymously. Why can't they still serve ads based on content? Similarly, it use to be that going to the app showed me "my feed". Sometime in the last 6 month it changed to only show me the newest post of people I'm following and then only posts of random "popular" people of which I have zero interest. If they want to make money from me, I'd use the app more with the old style of showing me only posts from people I follow with an ad every few posts, like say 1 ad 2 3 ad 4 5 6 ad 7 8 9 ad. As it is now I barely use the app anymore. Of course I'm not the target audience.
kraf 5y ago
I don't really see an agreement here. It's also not Instagrams content they are hiding behind the implied paywall. Because that's the real hidden truth, they make you pay, not with money, but with your soul. They will stalk you everywhere to the end of your existence, try to learn everything about you and use it against you in every way they can that gains them something. It's been bad a long time now, but not like this. You really want to tell me it was this blatant? So yeah, fuck you, I just wanted to look at cats.
littlecranky67 5y ago
Don't believe the lie that ads and dark patterns are the only way to run the internet. I remember the internet of the 90s, we had ways to look at cat pictures, too. And ads back then were way less obstrusive and tracking basically nonexistant. The issue is that FB+Insta try very hard to become the first/default go-to place for people to post content, just to lure in others and extract value out of them.
taurath 5y ago
Nah sorry. The reason companies that own social media don’t offer ad and tracker free versions is because then they’d have to say to their userbase what they’ll remove, and thereby what’s in the regular product. Their business model depends upon the ignorance of their userbase of what they’re doing, and they’re holding their network as hostage for those who don’t wish to participate. Unfederated and (forced) open systems is the only way out of this.
ring4234 5y ago
> "Well, fuck you, too. We're here to sell ads." Go fuck your self. Internet was never meant to be sell ads for you. Companies found loop hole and now you think you are entitled to it. Snap out of it asshole

SavantIdiot 5y ago

They can still have ads for people that don't create an account. I think the point you are trying to make is that people are demanding free (as in beer) content, a la WinAmp of the 1990's. In the past 20 years, we've come around out of that greedy phase and have come to accept a certain amount of advertising for content. But when the non-free content dominates the free content (e.g. pinterest's SEO), it's a fuck you pattern and not consumer greed. EDIT: IMHO

mdavis6890 5y ago
An important point is that WinAmp was not hosting content, so the cost was limited to the relatively small development cost. And there's still lots of that around. Once you get into actual hosting, it's very hard to get past a small number of users without a lot of funding. And since a lot of users don't want to pay, well...
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  That's a good point. I was referring to the sentiment at the time where people thought there was nothing wrong with sharing music files that one person paid for and then millions copied, rather than buy. Putting aside the ethics of $1/song as good or bad, there was a sense of entitlement that I think has been tempered. Maybe?

w0de0 5y ago

"All of this is for the very best end, for if there is a volcano at Lisbon, it could be in no other spot; for it is impossible but things should be as they are, for everything is for the best."

meepmorp 5y ago
Pangloss knew what was up

omgwtfbbq 5y ago

Of course it is and if you can't see that you probably work there implementing dark patterns.

andai 5y ago

Kinda offtopic but Instagram's ads changed my attitude towards ads, and my attitude towards Facebook's creepy level of insight into my life and personality. If they have that data anyway -- and hundreds of companies do -- I might as well benefit from it, and Instagram's ads were the first ones that I actually found interesting. First of all, it was obvious when something was an ad. Second, they weren't intrusive or obnoxious. And third, they showed me cool stuff I actually wanted to buy! It was actually an enjoyable experience and that's so weird to say about ads. The surveillance part still creeps me the hell out, but if they're gonna do it anyway they might as well use that data to benefit my life. (On that note, I often find myself wishing I could ask the NSA for a copy of an old message or photo...)

derangedHorse 5y ago
I second this, the only ads I’ve ever willingly clicked/tapped on with the intention of buying were from Instagram
- eitland 5y ago
  And that is quite a feat given how little information I hace willingly given Facebook compared to how I - until a few years ago - more or less volunteeres my data to Google. Google knew everything about it and yet couldn't manage to serve anything but the sleaziest ads. Instagram got the table scraps and yet convinced me to buy at least one thing that I'm actually happy with.
  - mszcz 5y ago
    Yep, seconded. Stopped using FB years ago and I use Instagram for two of my passions - tiny houses and boobs. And, somehow, Instagram figured out that I wanted to buy a Remarkable 2 ;) But yeah, joking aside, Instagram was the one of few places I actually saw ads of things I wanted to buy. Sure, the ads tried to rip my eyes out for those products ($50 for a product I found for $5) but still...
    - andai 5y ago

xiphias2 5y ago

Facebook/Mark Zuckeberg didn't spend $1B on the infrastructure of Instagram. He bought the network effect that he knew is impossible to beat by a better product.

hhs 5y ago

Seems this would fit with surveillance capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism

c7DJTLrn 5y ago

If that's the case then Instagram should not entice people in by temporarily granting access. It should be upfront about requiring an account.

seanp2k2 5y ago
And furthermore all the content should be delisted from Google for cloaking https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/guidelines/cloaking https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/guideline...

tshaddox 5y ago

> What? You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure and staffing so you can sit at home and spend your time looking at cats for free? Is that really fair? Would there be nowhere to see pictures of cats without their millions of dollars in infrastructure and staffing? Or could it be that their millions of dollars in infrastructure and staffing for selling ads is the reason the goto place for pictures of cats is BigTechCo instead of a ton of smaller forums and communities each of which is relatively inexpensive to operate.

whoisjuan 5y ago
Aggregation and distribution are virtues of large communities, not small ones. The sophistication of Facebok's business is what allows the creation and distribution of content. I agree that if Facebook, Snap, Pinterest, Reddit, Nextdoor, Twitter etc, didn't exist, small communities would fill that void... But they would do through a fragmented and siloed user experience that is hardly discoverable for the majority of the connected world. This is the equivalent of running a taxi business vs running an airline. Sure, a taxi can fulfill several transportation needs but it could never replace what an airline does.
- bun_at_work 5y ago
  Once upon a time Google Search was there to help you find those small online communities.
  - sodality2 5y ago
    You're moving the centralization problem to google, then.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Godel_unicode 5y ago
  > ...small communities would fill that void. For a short time, and the overwhelming majority of people would have no idea that content exists. Then some enterprising startup founder would realize that there's a huge market for those exact services, and history would slowly repeat (rhyme with?) itself. This free content, sans big tech pipedream is just that. Sorry if that makes you sad.

e12e 5y ago

> You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure and staffing so you can sit at home and spend your time looking at cats for free? No, they have your attention and they're going to connect you to organizations who will pay for it. "The infrastructure" to share cat pictures cost peanuts. It's the addictive dark patterns and montezation/tracking that costs millions. That's the irony.

cyrux004 5y ago
Shouldnt you include engineers compensation in "The infrastructure" thats where a lot of money goes.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  A bloated payroll to support a bloated advertising platform with a bloated AI-based recommendation algorithm when all it should be doing is loading a descending-order list of most recent submissions meeting the category criteria.... Don't talk about costs, this crap is self-inflicted
  - saurik 5y ago
    The hosting and bandwidth costs of images and especially video is non-trivial. I agree that the vast majority of the costs of these overly-large companies comes from what happens while trying to make them profitable, and then all of the engineering work that goes into that... but that all starts because running the site in the first place wasn't free and you have to do something to make them at least sustainable, with your "obvious" options being to either: 1) ask for donations (which likely won't pay for the site if you get popular: I know this from experience); 2) require people to pay some small subscription fee (which will make the site less fun for everyone); 3) pray ubiquitous micropayments eventually happens (i work on this problem as part of Orchid, but it still hasn't happened ;P); 4) sell "something else" to whales, like t-shirts or the ability to "guild" messages (the strategies reddit was trying to do as they resisted ads for a long time... maybe these work well enough?); or 5) start trying to sell ads and become the thing you hate. The only other strategies I have seen tend to either drag you towards #5 or simply cause other dark patterns, such as taking a cut of "tips" (what TikTok and Twitch do), which at bare minimum incentivizes the "don't you dare talk about alternative payment systems in our ecosystem: all payments must go through us" model sin (which can be fought against if you have a lot of willpower and remain private--I never required this with Cydia as I considered it the original sin my entire market existed to undermine--but I see the motivation and it feels kind of inevitable). I personally bet the only real "correct" solution is essentially #3... if we ever get to the point where the fees for that are as easy to pay and as low as the fees you pay for electricity (which works on a similar model).

thesausageking 5y ago

Ads are fine. The "fuck you" pattern is letting you see the cat picture for 5 seconds before covering it up and requiring you to create an account and share your data with Facebook before you can see it.

andrewmcwatters 5y ago
Everyone everywhere has realized throughout the ages that conversion of anything is higher when you get a demo of the product. This isn't a "fuck you" pattern. They gave you a social media Costco food sample.
- Falling3 5y ago
  Except Costco is very upfront and honest about what a sample is and how it works. The food-based analogy would be they offer you an entire meal then slap you after you take your first small bite letting you know you have to pay to continue eating.
- thesausageking 5y ago
  I have no doubt it converts better. Facebook are masters at using little dopamine hits and denials to get users to do whatever they want. It’s still an obnoxious thing to do, which is the point of the article.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  > Everyone everywhere has realized throughout the ages that conversion of anything is higher when you get a demo of the product. Apparently not video games. Not many game companies offer demos anymore because they actually hurt sales.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    > > Everyone everywhere has realized throughout the ages that conversion of anything is higher when you get a demo of the product. > Apparently not video games. Not many game companies offer demos anymore because they actually hurt sales. That's interesting. Is that because the demo cannibalizes sales (ie. people have enough fun just playing the demo they don't feel compelled to buy the game), or because the demo undermines the game's value proposition (ie. people don't buy the crappy game because the demo makes the crappiness evident)?

ajharrison 5y ago

Thank you! The entitlement is disgusting.

charwalker 5y ago

Either you're the customer or you're the product. Recognizing that nearly all internet companies do this allows you to identify what level you're comfortable with and duck out or move on if needed. It's always good to review your social media habits and scale back. I recommend doing this the same time you're spring cleaning or after you prep for winter. Also go through and unsubscribe from emails and update passwords.

makeitdouble 5y ago
> Either you're the customer or you're the product. Or you're both. Or perhaps none. I kinda like that we have now such a big, visible and studied echosystem where we'll see any pattern working at a significant scale. Any kind of dichotomy just doesn't cut it anymore I think.

pnt12 5y ago

That's quite a ridiculous claim. Surely they can display ads to anonymous users, That's not hard at all. But then they can't track you and profile you, which is a big no. Now is it fair for a company to track and shape the behavior of millions of people?

arrosenberg 5y ago

> This is the implied agreement. You understand it, or you don't. I'm fine with businesses who use that model and make it clear. Those kinds of tactics are galling coming from a company whose literal mission statement is "Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together." If you want people to make an account, make a more compelling business proposition. Gatekeeping seems like the most vulnerable, monopolistic position to take.

isaacremuant 5y ago

Until they populate all the top search results with those patterns. This apologies for any unethical practice by companies in Reddit/HNs are really interesting. They side completely with the authorities. Properly trained.

grishka 5y ago

I'm pretty sure that if they had non-targeted (or at least targeted not based on tracking), unobtrusive ads, and zero dark patterns, they would've been still earning enough money to cover their expenses and then some. Unfortunately, they've set out to earn all the money in the world for no benefit to anyone at all.

bbarnett 5y ago
If you manage to build a large enough empire, then... and only then, can you make the world a better place.

ozim 5y ago

People constantly think that Facebook/Insta/Google is trying to do good things for the users or that whatever is good for users is good for BigCo-s. So sometimes it is true, but most of the time it is not and BigCo-s have to push users to do things.

rq1 5y ago

1/ They bait people in to destroy any sane competition. Then they milk them. 2/ Well fuck you even further and go to hell for defending such behaviours. 3/ ps. Their infra is ridiculous. A team of 100-120 engineers can do way better. They can’t get their user base though because of 1/

teawrecks 5y ago

"X is self evident, but maybe not to you," seems to me like a fundamentally flawed argument.

panny 5y ago

>You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure You almost had me, right up to this point. Then I realized you are posting pointed sarcasm about instagram's owners.

jude- 5y ago

You can advertise without abusing the user.

NelsonMinar 5y ago

The users of Instagram create the value though. The ones posting the cat pictures.

the_gipsy 5y ago

The bait and switch. You used to be able to view links of public post. The bigger the userbase grows, the bigger the fuckyous they can give the rest. It’s no longer “hey join us, we have cool stuff”, it’s “fuck you, we already got your friends, whatcha gonna do”. We can complain about that, right?

stana 5y ago

There seem to be many non tech savvy people who were shocked by docos like Social Dilemma and don't understand they are the product. They think they are 'just looking at cats'. Maybe these companies should clearly display on their front page they in personal data collection and targeted advertising business.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

XorNot 5y ago

So how does this explain why Windows 10, which I have paid like $150 for per license, is now infested with ads, tracking and online presence - and close to impossible to buy without that. They aren't even trying to put a $ figure on what they think it's worth - because they can't be stopped from doing it. There is no implied agreement, it's exactly as stated.

6502nerdface 5y ago
I guess someone could argue that it only costs $150 because of the ads. Windows 95 cost well over twice that when it was launched (inflation adjusted). Maybe in the same way that airfares are way cheaper than they were in the 90s, but with much crappier included service.
- jonathankoren 5y ago
  Let’s be honest though. Windows is supported through OEM licenses. M$ (yeah, I’m dusting this off here, due to the context) isn’t strapped for cash.
  - chrisweekly 5y ago
    scrapped -> strapped
    - jonathankoren 5y ago
      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I’m on mobile. Whatever
- esperent 5y ago
  How many more copies of windows 10 were sold compared to Windows 95?
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    How many more engineers work on Windows 10 compared to Windows 95?

emptyparadise 5y ago

"No, fuck you. The internet was never meant to be this." I understand how this shitty agreement came to be but that doesn't mean that I like having my experience online be a metaphorical middle finger. They spent billions in infrastructure and staffing to hijack the free internet where I could look at cat pictures on cat picture websites that had cat pictures as the goal, all so they could show me ads, and they have the nerve to say that I'm in the wrong for not being happy about that?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sriku 5y ago

It's not just about ads .. they can just show them to this visitor if it was. It's about targeted ads. They have slightly limited ability to target if the viewer doesn't sign in .. for which the viewer needs to accept their T&C .. which is needed for them so someone doesn't sue them for invading their privacy without their consent. IANAL so I'm not sure whether such a suit will stand in any court.

MikeUt 5y ago

So did Instagram employ these fuck-you patterns from the start, or did they pretend to be friendly until they'd gotten enough market share and network effects? That's called bait & switch, and is (if not legally in this case, then morally) rightly considered fraud.

wruza 5y ago

This company neither has these cats, nor creates a content with them. Sites with images are full of cats and ads, but only instagram is arrogant enough to demand your ids. It’s easy to fuck the instagram, really, because it barely has anything of value that is not reposted elsewhere, or just similar. I’d even have a profile on it if it weren’t such a moron (judging by other sites with cats, where I register eventually after some lurking). They don’t know basic internet rules and deserve everything said above and below.

jrm4 5y ago

Okay, then they need to SAY THAT. All of them need to be CLEAR about what their business model is and how it works, and do not give any mess about "free markets" or "trade secrets" here, they have captured too much attention to be treated with kid gloves.

josefx 5y ago

Wait, ad click through tracking now only works for registered users? When did that change? More importantly, what are all these ads doing on pages that don't require me to login?

errantmind 5y ago

Same thing happened with cable TV back in the day. It is about extracting as Mich value as most people will tolerate. There is no escaping ads if a company isn't principally opposed to them and charges directly for their product

sheinsheish 5y ago

“Wow fuck you, I don’t.”

pronlover723 5y ago

How is Instagram's profitability? Like the OP sometimes I'd like to look at a feed anonymously. Why can't they still serve ads based on content? Similarly, it use to be that going to the app showed me "my feed". Sometime in the last 6 month it changed to only show me the newest post of people I'm following and then only posts of random "popular" people of which I have zero interest. If they want to make money from me, I'd use the app more with the old style of showing me only posts from people I follow with an ad every few posts, like say 1 ad 2 3 ad 4 5 6 ad 7 8 9 ad. As it is now I barely use the app anymore. Of course I'm not the target audience.

kraf 5y ago

I don't really see an agreement here. It's also not Instagrams content they are hiding behind the implied paywall. Because that's the real hidden truth, they make you pay, not with money, but with your soul. They will stalk you everywhere to the end of your existence, try to learn everything about you and use it against you in every way they can that gains them something. It's been bad a long time now, but not like this. You really want to tell me it was this blatant? So yeah, fuck you, I just wanted to look at cats.

littlecranky67 5y ago

Don't believe the lie that ads and dark patterns are the only way to run the internet. I remember the internet of the 90s, we had ways to look at cat pictures, too. And ads back then were way less obstrusive and tracking basically nonexistant. The issue is that FB+Insta try very hard to become the first/default go-to place for people to post content, just to lure in others and extract value out of them.

taurath 5y ago

Nah sorry. The reason companies that own social media don’t offer ad and tracker free versions is because then they’d have to say to their userbase what they’ll remove, and thereby what’s in the regular product. Their business model depends upon the ignorance of their userbase of what they’re doing, and they’re holding their network as hostage for those who don’t wish to participate. Unfederated and (forced) open systems is the only way out of this.

ring4234 5y ago

> "Well, fuck you, too. We're here to sell ads." Go fuck your self. Internet was never meant to be sell ads for you. Companies found loop hole and now you think you are entitled to it. Snap out of it asshole