5 ms·

Please for the love of god make it a legal requirement that messaging must be made available as a separate app without addictive feeds. Or make it such that use

by 55555 1y ago

Please for the love of god make it a legal requirement that messaging must be made available as a separate app without addictive feeds. Or make it such that users can disable the feed in settings. We need to be able to message our friends without seeing a feed without having to convert all of our friends to a new platform.

School-Cotton 1y ago
Messenger is already a separate app.
- moolcool 1y ago
  Instagram Messenger is not
  - sigzero 1y ago
    Isn't it free? You're asking a lot for something that is "free".
    - darkwater 1y ago
      You can actually pay for Instagram, if you don't want ads. You still have messages tied with the feed. Now, one must also say that Instagram wasn't the incumbent messaging platform in any place in the world. It's just that newer generations always cannot tolerate to do things like their parents did, so if their parents primarily used Whatsapp or Facebook Messenger (oh, wait, all of them owned by Meta!) to communicate, they ought to find a new platform to get locked in.
pimlottc 1y ago
Completely. I'm not normally on Instagram but I recently made meet some new friends that use it for messaging. The number of times I've open the app to message someone and gotten distracted by the feed...
Aurornis 1y ago
> We need to be able to message our friends without seeing a feed without having to convert all of our friends to a new platform. Those people are in the app because of the social features and the feed in the first place. The messaging features were built on top of the platform. Requiring companies to make and maintain a separate app entirely if their product has messaging features is an unreasonable requirement. If someone has such a strong self-control problem that they can’t message someone without becoming addicted to the feed, they shouldn’t be involved with the platform at all. Just exchange emails, phone numbers for SMS, or any other type of communication. I seriously doubt that your friends are only able to communicate through exactly one communication channel and it happens to be Instagram.
- inetknght 1y ago
  > Those people are in the app because of the social features and the feed in the first place. Well, I suppose that's one take on it. I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger. Then Facebook changed how Facebook Messenger works. You could call it a rugpull, I would call it US business practices.
  - ecb_penguin 1y ago
    > Well, I suppose that's one take on it. It's the correct take. Facebook had 800M users on the day Messenger was released. > I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger Why would you argue a nonsense point? Literally all you have to do is Google "when was messenger released" and "number of facebook users in August 2011" Unless you think those 800M users were just waiting for a shitty messenger?
    - swiftcoder 1y ago
      This judgement is about Instagram, specifically. Messenger pre-dates Instagram (and very significantly pre-dates the Facebook acquisition of Instagram).
  - Aurornis 1y ago
bitpush 1y ago
I don't know why you want a government agency to dictate product strategy.
- ecb_penguin 1y ago
  It's the European way
- komali2 1y ago
  Because things in the State should help people, not exploit them. If the thing, in this case, a corporation, is harming people, why not force it to stop?
  - bitpush 1y ago
    > If the thing, in this case, a corporation, is harming people Having messaging feature inside an app is harming people? Have we lost all perspective? Why stop at this? Why dont we have a dedicated device just for messaging because if you really think about it, iPhones are actively harming people.
  - richwater 1y ago
    > If the thing, in this case, a corporation, is harming people, why not force it to stop? Lack of a messaging app is harming people? Let's be serious here.
    - komali2 1y ago
      No, the feed is harming people. Social media and the dark patterns they use to maximize engagement are harming people.
- psychoslave 1y ago
  From a government point of view, it makes sense to jump in when the product is a psy-ops at societal level, doesn’t it?
- array_key_first 1y ago
ecb_penguin 1y ago
> Please for the love of god make it a legal requirement that messaging must be made available as a separate app Please for the love of god do not make legal requirements about how to build an app and what features can be included. > We need to be able to message our friends without seeing a feed without having to convert all of our friends to a new platform. lol, you have no legal right to how a chat dialog must be presented. Why don't you try innovating instead of suing?
- alkonaut 1y ago
  That would be the sensible idea in a free market. But that ship sailed LONG ago. Now there are apps and "markets" that are so important and dominating (Amazon, Facebook, ...) that the only alternatives are basically to split them, control them or regulate them in detail. The problem isn't lack of "innovation". Anyone can make any social app work the way they want to. But that doesn't mean the same rules and laws applies - or should apply - to one with 1B users as one with 100 users.
  - darkwater 1y ago
    Case in point: the only other big "apps" that appeared, survived and are actually making a dent in the existing monopolies are from China, backed by a "hostile" government and impossible to buy for the incumbents.
  - ecb_penguin 1y ago
    > That would be the sensible idea in a free market. Absolutely nothing stopping you from starting a social network > But that ship sailed LONG ago. I'm pretty sure there are hundreds? thousands? of startups ready to launch that all do some variant of FB. Why are you on YC if you think free market tech is dead? > But that doesn't mean the same rules and laws applies - or should apply - to one with 1B users as one with 100 users. lol, what? We have different laws depending on how popular you are? What are the thresholds for when new laws apply? Is it strictly user count? Engagement time? Revenue? Innovation may be dead in Europe but don't try to bring this nonsense elsewhere.
ajsnigrutin 1y ago
Why not just use SMS messages? No feeds, literally all phones support them, with MMS you also get photos and stuff... you don't need another party involved for the messages to work, and you're already paying for them.
- seanhunter 1y ago
  This is something I genuinely don't understand. Whatsapp used to have a reason to exist because the SMS experience on android was pretty bad. That's not the case any more.
  - fer 1y ago
    WhatsApp took off simply because SMS used to cost money, at least in the areas of Europe I'm familiar with.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  1. You do need a third party. 2. SMS is probably the most insecure protocol created for anything, ever. 3. The experience is as close to as shit as it can get. 4. Most modern messaging features aren't supported. 5. Most devices don't support SMS. 6. You can't sync SMS across devices.

by 55555 1y ago

School-Cotton 1y ago

Messenger is already a separate app.

moolcool 1y ago
Instagram Messenger is not
- sigzero 1y ago
  Isn't it free? You're asking a lot for something that is "free".
  - darkwater 1y ago
    You can actually pay for Instagram, if you don't want ads. You still have messages tied with the feed. Now, one must also say that Instagram wasn't the incumbent messaging platform in any place in the world. It's just that newer generations always cannot tolerate to do things like their parents did, so if their parents primarily used Whatsapp or Facebook Messenger (oh, wait, all of them owned by Meta!) to communicate, they ought to find a new platform to get locked in.

pimlottc 1y ago

Completely. I'm not normally on Instagram but I recently made meet some new friends that use it for messaging. The number of times I've open the app to message someone and gotten distracted by the feed...

Aurornis 1y ago

> We need to be able to message our friends without seeing a feed without having to convert all of our friends to a new platform. Those people are in the app because of the social features and the feed in the first place. The messaging features were built on top of the platform. Requiring companies to make and maintain a separate app entirely if their product has messaging features is an unreasonable requirement. If someone has such a strong self-control problem that they can’t message someone without becoming addicted to the feed, they shouldn’t be involved with the platform at all. Just exchange emails, phone numbers for SMS, or any other type of communication. I seriously doubt that your friends are only able to communicate through exactly one communication channel and it happens to be Instagram.

inetknght 1y ago
> Those people are in the app because of the social features and the feed in the first place. Well, I suppose that's one take on it. I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger. Then Facebook changed how Facebook Messenger works. You could call it a rugpull, I would call it US business practices.
- ecb_penguin 1y ago
  > Well, I suppose that's one take on it. It's the correct take. Facebook had 800M users on the day Messenger was released. > I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger Why would you argue a nonsense point? Literally all you have to do is Google "when was messenger released" and "number of facebook users in August 2011" Unless you think those 800M users were just waiting for a shitty messenger?
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    This judgement is about Instagram, specifically. Messenger pre-dates Instagram (and very significantly pre-dates the Facebook acquisition of Instagram).
- Aurornis 1y ago

bitpush 1y ago

I don't know why you want a government agency to dictate product strategy.

ecb_penguin 1y ago
It's the European way
komali2 1y ago
Because things in the State should help people, not exploit them. If the thing, in this case, a corporation, is harming people, why not force it to stop?
- bitpush 1y ago
  > If the thing, in this case, a corporation, is harming people Having messaging feature inside an app is harming people? Have we lost all perspective? Why stop at this? Why dont we have a dedicated device just for messaging because if you really think about it, iPhones are actively harming people.
- richwater 1y ago
  > If the thing, in this case, a corporation, is harming people, why not force it to stop? Lack of a messaging app is harming people? Let's be serious here.
  - komali2 1y ago
    No, the feed is harming people. Social media and the dark patterns they use to maximize engagement are harming people.
psychoslave 1y ago
From a government point of view, it makes sense to jump in when the product is a psy-ops at societal level, doesn’t it?
array_key_first 1y ago

ecb_penguin 1y ago

> Please for the love of god make it a legal requirement that messaging must be made available as a separate app Please for the love of god do not make legal requirements about how to build an app and what features can be included. > We need to be able to message our friends without seeing a feed without having to convert all of our friends to a new platform. lol, you have no legal right to how a chat dialog must be presented. Why don't you try innovating instead of suing?

alkonaut 1y ago
That would be the sensible idea in a free market. But that ship sailed LONG ago. Now there are apps and "markets" that are so important and dominating (Amazon, Facebook, ...) that the only alternatives are basically to split them, control them or regulate them in detail. The problem isn't lack of "innovation". Anyone can make any social app work the way they want to. But that doesn't mean the same rules and laws applies - or should apply - to one with 1B users as one with 100 users.
- darkwater 1y ago
  Case in point: the only other big "apps" that appeared, survived and are actually making a dent in the existing monopolies are from China, backed by a "hostile" government and impossible to buy for the incumbents.
- ecb_penguin 1y ago
  > That would be the sensible idea in a free market. Absolutely nothing stopping you from starting a social network > But that ship sailed LONG ago. I'm pretty sure there are hundreds? thousands? of startups ready to launch that all do some variant of FB. Why are you on YC if you think free market tech is dead? > But that doesn't mean the same rules and laws applies - or should apply - to one with 1B users as one with 100 users. lol, what? We have different laws depending on how popular you are? What are the thresholds for when new laws apply? Is it strictly user count? Engagement time? Revenue? Innovation may be dead in Europe but don't try to bring this nonsense elsewhere.

ajsnigrutin 1y ago

Why not just use SMS messages? No feeds, literally all phones support them, with MMS you also get photos and stuff... you don't need another party involved for the messages to work, and you're already paying for them.

seanhunter 1y ago
This is something I genuinely don't understand. Whatsapp used to have a reason to exist because the SMS experience on android was pretty bad. That's not the case any more.
- fer 1y ago
  WhatsApp took off simply because SMS used to cost money, at least in the areas of Europe I'm familiar with.
array_key_first 1y ago
1. You do need a third party. 2. SMS is probably the most insecure protocol created for anything, ever. 3. The experience is as close to as shit as it can get. 4. Most modern messaging features aren't supported. 5. Most devices don't support SMS. 6. You can't sync SMS across devices.