Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/09/26/instacreepy.html
…
6 Likes
I not entirely sure about the outrage here. The founders of instagram sold their site, of course FB intends to run instagram as they see fit. That is why they bought it.
It seems to me that FB intended to pay lip service so that the users would stay and that the sellers of instagram now try to make as much noise as they can so that the users think about jumping ship. Do they have a new photosharing site up their sleeves, maybe?
The message when a social site is sold is always the same:
“Thank you all for having made this social site possible. Now we are getting rich, you don’t and the new owner will first erase your memories.”
6 Likes
it’s all a sign that Facebook senior management have not been able to live up to their promise of independence for their acquisitions, and that the facebookization of Instagram – surveillance, toxic “engagement” tactics, and general creepiness – can’t be far behind.
It was only a matter of time. The constant acquisitions of potential competitors are all meant to ensure, STD-like, the survival of the core Facebook business model that’s led to such terrible results.
6 Likes
8 Likes
Facebook, the Standard Oil of social media.
7 Likes
Unfortunately I can’t read the article as Techcrunch’s privacy dashboard is a maze of external links to manage making sure that they are selling my every behaviour to all the sleaziest scumbags on the web.
Including Facebook…
8 Likes
OT, but i’m reminded that political cartoonists have always been a low-hanging fruit kinda people.
2 Likes
Thank you for the genuine logical LOL. I’m going to swipe that for future use.
2 Likes
Indeed, that’s entirely true. There tends to be not a lot of nuance in political cartoons. Hard to do that in a single panel, though.
3 Likes
That was well over 100 years ago… you’d think capitalism would be over it’s final stages by now, and we’d have entered our socialist utopia and the end of history…
2 Likes
Even broken up, they got involved in lots of mischief. I imagine that social media companies will be the same.
3 Likes
Immanent facebookization?
Immanent: Of activity, an act, etc.: performed or occurring entirely within (the mind of) the agent and producing no external effect.
That sounds intriguing.
3 Likes
Imminent, but I assume this is true. Companies don’t buy other companies to let them do exactly what they want, and Facebook has never been into any mission other than vacuuming up every human interaction and ruining the shit out of it for the sake of a few advertising pennies per village-worth of digested civilisation.
The interesting question remains, what were their plans for Oculus, and when will we see the hideous fruition of that?
4 Likes
“immanent”
You mean Imminent?
2 Likes
It’s hard to think of a word to substitute for “imminent” so perhaps consult a dictionary for the spelling?
Immanent doesn’t work here. God is immanent (and there are doctrines of immanence).
Good. Instagram will fall, and Boing Boing will become the dominant social network. I look forward to @orenwolf’s benevolent dictatorship extending across the web 
6 Likes
I’ve seen companies that get acquired and maintain autonomy. There’s always more bureacy (ex: more stringent travel booking/reimbursement process), but it’s perfectly doable to acquire a company and just let it act as an autonomous unit that feeds profit upstream. Facebook is simply choosing not to do so. Choosing. It is an active decision, not a force of nature that cannot be controlled.
4 Likes
Maybe Zuckerberg thinks he will become Skynet?
3 Likes
