4 ms·
Honestly I never understood the appeal. A social network that forces you to wedge your content in images and short videos, while on Facebook you could share Yo
by racked 4y ago
Honestly I never understood the appeal.
A social network that forces you to wedge your content in images and short videos, while on Facebook you could share YouTube videos, music, interesting links, write-ups, you name it. How can anyone in their right mind prefer something as limiting as Instagram? Even its instant messenger is limited compared to Facebook's.
- pwython 4y agoPeople said the same thing about Twitter with its original 140 character limit. Just easily-consumable content you can scroll through. I enjoy the artwork I find on there. If I want YouTube links, music videos, news articles, etc I'll hit up Reddit.
- mertd 4y agoInstagram's formats feel nicer for getting updates from friends and family. No rants, just happy photos against usually a nice background. Performative or commercial accounts make the experience worse though, and from what I understand these are being prioritized in the timeline.
- standardUser 4y agoThe simplification is (was) part of the appeal. It felt clean and refreshing to mostly look at pretty photos with minimal text. And it was a much more positive space. Photos of vacations, food, clothes, pets, friends. No political fighting or conspiracy theories or bitching about an ex. The comment space, a usual cesspool of unmitigated negativity and cruelty, was conveniently tucked away. I miss the pre-pandemic Instagram. Now, it feels like it's transformed into a more general-purpose, Facebook-like social network. Which I guess should have been predictable!