Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Instagram Is Cracking Down On Services That Sell Likes, Followers (recode.net)

Posted by BeauHD on from the tisk-tisk dept.

Instagram will be cutting down on the services that let you buy followers or likes. Starting Monday, Instagram says it will no longer allow "inauthentic likes, follows and comments from accounts that use third-party apps to boost their popularity." That includes buying "Likes" and followers, and paying for other engagement generated by apps that require a user's Instagram login details in order to operate on their behalf. Recode reports: Instagram says it "built machine learning tools" to help detect accounts growing artificially. The move is not retroactive, so Instagram won't be removing "Likes" or followers that accounts have already garnered. It's just going to prevent them in the future. Instagram doesn't list any specific apps or services on its blog post, so it's tough to tell which third-party services will be impacted by this. This kind of activity has been against Instagram's Terms of Service for a while, so it's not entirely clear why Instagram wants to crack down on this now. Here's a logical guess though: Facebook is under more pressure than ever to police the activity on its platforms, given all that has happened with Facebook and Russian election meddling since 2016.

25 comments

  1. So, a reflexive crackdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta wonder how that's gonna work...

  2. So you mean you admit your numbers are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Brave

    1. Re:So you mean you admit your numbers are bullshit by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      No, they explicitly are not retroactive. They're not admitting anything bout the old numbers.

      Which is good, because otherwise they may have to admit some people gamed the system.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  3. How to avoid bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Turn off the rectangle you are starting at, go outside and talk to people. It will be obvious if they are human or not, and if they are human, it's possible to tell whether or not they are working from a script by their words and body language.

    1. Re:How to avoid bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . if they are human, it's possible to tell whether or not they are working from a script by their words and body language.

      Ain't that hard to spot a conservative Trumploving Fox-bot.

    2. Re:How to avoid bots by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. Some are pretty good at playing dumb, you can barely tell them from the humans.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:How to avoid bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont know about that, im still taking bets on zuckerborg.

      cap: quagmire

    4. Re:How to avoid bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, 80% of people are fairly moderate and IMO, it's broadly determined by you're "religion" (quoted because some identify as Christian but when you listen to them, they're not really). It's generally those hot-button issues, which can be tricky to even bring up in conversation. I mean, how often would you start with migrant issues? Female reproductive issues? Gun control issues? Those are not conversation starters; they're "icebergs" and you're a Titanic because you too have similar hot-button issues.

  4. The one thing they almost never mention by TuballoyThunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is the false positive or false negative rates for these machine learning algorithms. While many people would argue that the consequence of an error in this case is zero, some Instagram accounts are making serious money (> $10,000 per post) according to a story on Wired (may be paywalled, sorry).

    1. Re:The one thing they almost never mention by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      some Instagram accounts are making serious money (> $10,000 per post) according to a story on Wired (may be paywalled, sorry).

      Even money those accounts are some of the ones most heavily engaged in purchasing likes/followers/etc.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:The one thing they almost never mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? If you build a business around the latest social media fad product, then your expectations of having that business taken down at any time for any reason should be high.

  5. How long before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    youtube and other social media services start doing the same?

    everyone knows the government tolerates no competition.

  6. Re:LOL at "tough to tell" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well,
    tough has some flexibility implied
    whilst
    hard implies a less flexible nature,
    more leaning towards the brittle side of a strong structure under strain.

    but you're just a troll,
    with no more literary skills as a mad hatter.

  7. Re:LOL at "tough to tell" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean "hard to tell", but then, you're American, so have no literary skills whatsoever...

    Says the arrogant ass posting in Americanized English to an American website.

    Are you forced to speak German or Russian every day?

    YOU'RE FUCKING WELCOME, YOU WORTHLESS SHIT-FOR-BRAINS IDIOT!

  8. Re:LOL at "tough to tell" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make America Rake Again !!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raaGcxnwCSE

  9. rubbish summary by sad_ · · Score: 2

    "Instagram doesn't list any specific apps or services on its blog post, so it's tough to tell which third-party services will be impacted by this."

    well, those that boost your accounts popularity, i though that was pretty clear.

    "This kind of activity has been against Instagram's Terms of Service for a while, so it's not entirely clear why Instagram wants to crack down on this now."

    because 1. it's against their policy and they now have a system that can enforce it and
    2. fake likes lower the value of your social network.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:rubbish summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. fake likes lower the value of your social network.

      For some, apparently, the likes are the only thing of value because everybody wants to be internet famous.

      At that point, it's not a social network any more, it's an advertising network.

    2. Re:rubbish summary by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The thing with fame, it is almost a catch 22. You can't get famous unless are are already famous. Internet fame is very fleeting, So you don't have time to work up your Social Media Presence until you are a big famous person, You need a kick start to your career. A few thousand likes to boost up your presence, to be posted on the main pages, means other will see your content, then subscribe and watch you if they like it.

      The biggest thing is the Algorithm, It doesn't seem to be setup for finding new talent and bringing it up, but showing what is already popular.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:rubbish summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't have time to work up your Social Media Presence until you are a big famous person, You need a kick start to your career.

      Honestly, if being famous on the internet is what you think your 'career' is going to be, then you're probably going to be in for a nasty surprise when the money dries up.

      There is nothing more vacuous and pointless than internet celebrity and the people who seek it.

      It doesn't seem to be setup for finding new talent and bringing it up

      LOL, talent? Really? Sorry, but that word might not mean what you think it means.

      Oh, look, I have cat memes and pictures of my food, I have talent, now give me money.

      The shallow narcissism of internet culture doesn't impress me very much.

    4. Re:rubbish summary by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I don't think Internet Fame is a Career. But more of a get rich quick scheme. Where the Odds of getting anything meaningful is like winning the lottery.
      If you have marketed your cat as the Grumpy Cat, You probably have gotten a few years of fame, and made a lot of money. However not really enough to sustain yourself for the rest of your life.

      We often confuse talent with low production value. They are a lot of talented actors on the internet, but they have such a low production value, that it distracts from their talents.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  10. They're not playing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bzzzt - In-vest-i-gate her e-mails!! - Lock her up!! - Bzzzt - Bzzzt - Fake News!! - Fake News!! - MA-GA!! - MA-GA!! - MA-GA!! - Bzzzt - How come you did-n't have a prob-lem when O-bam-a did it!! - Bzzzt - Clin-ton Net-work News - Bzzzt - Bzzzt - Hill-ary wants op-en bor-ders - Pass it to see what's in it - Bzzzt - You should-n't be a-llow to ex-er-cise your first a-mend-ment right to kneel for the na-tion-al an-them be-cause it dis-re-spects vet-er-ans - Bzzzt - Bzzzt - Free-dom of re-lig-ion as long as it is Chris-ti-an-i-ty - Bzzzt - Leave the gov-ern-ment out of my per-son-al life - Bzzzt - What kind of a nan-ny state tax-es soda? -Bzzzt - Hey, they should-n't be allowed to smoke pot - Bzzzt - Bzzzt

    Battery low - Bzzzzzzzzzt - Need to bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt watch Bzzzt Tuck-er Carl-Bzzztson to Bzzzt re-charge - Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzrpp

    Fucking morons can't think for themselves.

    1. Re:They're not playing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far there is no evidence that Ms. Trump handled *classified information*. If Ms. Trump had been grossly negligent in the handling of *classified information* then I'd want to see her prosecuted for it. Just like I want to see Hillary prosecuted for it. The important question is not "which do I happen to like", or "which one is a member of my favored party". The question is, "what would happen to any ordinary not-well-connected citizen who found a way to do the exact same thing?"

      Hypothetically, if you or I obtained a security clearance, handled classified information, and did the exact same things Hillary did, what would happen to us? Would the government decide not to even bother filing charges, like they did with the well-connected Hillary? Or would the government throw the book at us, stack charges and put enormous pressure on us to enter into a plea bargain?

      I may not like Hillary but that's a petty personal opinion, a matter of taste. What's actually a threat to our system of government is to have a virtually untouchable elite class living under a complete double standard. Our society is based on the notion of "rule of law". Anything else is simply another form of tyranny. That's what I am against.

    2. Re:They're not playing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bzzzzzt!!! - So far there is no ev-i-dence that Ms. Trump han-dled *class-i-fied in-for-ma-tion*. bzzzzzt!!! - If Ms. Trump had been gross-ly neg-li-gent in the hand-ling of *class--ified in-for-ma-tion* then I'd want to see her pro-se-cu-ted for it. bzzzzzt!!! - bzzzzzt!!! - Just like I want to see Hill-ary pro-se-cu-ted for it. The im-por-tant bzzzzzt!!! - ques-tion is not "which do I hap-pen to like", or "which one is a mem-ber of my fa-vored par-ty". The ques-tion is, - bzzzzzt!!! - "what would hap-pen to any or-di-nary not-well-con-nec-ted - bzzzzzt!!! - cit-i-zen who found a way to do the ex-act same thing?"

      bzzzzzt!!! - bzzzzzt!!! - Hy-po-thet-i-cal-ly, if you or I ob-tained a se-cur-i-ty clear-ance, hand-led class-i-fied in-bzzzzzt!!!-for-ma-tion, and did the ex-act same things - bzzzzzt!!! - Hill-ary did, what would hap-pen to us? Would the gov-ern-ment de-cide not to ev-en bo-ther fili-ng char-ges, -bzzzzzt!!! - like they did with the well-con-nec-ted Hill-ary? bzzzzzt!!! - bzzzzzt!!! - Or would the gov-ern-ment throw the book at us, stack char-ges and put e-nor-mous pres-sure on us to en-ter in-to a plea bar-gain?

      I may not like Hill-ary but that's a pet-ty per-son-al o-pin-ion, a mat-ter of taste. What's ac-tu-ally a threat to our sys-tem of gov-ern-ment is to have a vir-tu-ally un-touch-a-ble e-lite class liv-ing un-der a com-plete dou-ble stand-ard. Our so-ci-ety is based on the no-tion of "rule of law". Any-thing else is simp-ly an-other form of ty-ran-ny. That's what I am ag-ainst.

      bzzzzzt!!! - bzzzzzt!!!

      bzzzzzt!!!

      1) Double standard? Where have I heard that argument before? Hmmm. Oh, yeah, Fox News!! They're the ones trying to hyper-inflate that angle. You've proven my point.
      2) They didn't find anything worth prosecuting Hillary for. Get over it, already. Comey was the greatest thing since sliced bread when he called Hillary out about her emails. A few days later he then determined there wasn't anything worth prosecuting her for. To what end did that serve him? Then when he's investigating your shitgibbon over something that may actually have some substance to it, you vilify the guy? You're crying about imaginary double standards while actively involving yourself in real ones.
      3) Why are you bringing "Ms. Trump's" email into it? I never even said anything about that feckless cunt. Not that there isn't plenty that could be said. Riddle me this: Does it make you feel like an internet tough-guy to beat up on straw men?
      4) What's your name, comrade? Ivan? Alexandr? Dimitri?

  11. Re:LOL at "tough to tell" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    finland mendioned
    ebin :DDDDd