-
Instagram seems to have done a mass banning of electronics accounts
Posted by sahko123 on 12 Apr, 2021 15:31 -
My business has...had an instagram account revolving around showing my design process and updates on progress etc.. and this morning i received a message when loggin in that my account had been disabled asked me to do a captcha give my phone number, confirm said number with a code (all done). And havent heard anything back i asked around in a discord im in for a youtuber called strangeparts and another person (someone from Australia meanwhile I am in Ireland) had a similar account (based around the repair of equipment) banned earlier today.
Has anyone else been part of this issue?
They said that the account was banned due to the account being reported as a "scam company" and that instagrams decision was "Final".
Also our accounts were not linked or associated in any way shape or form and neither were we as people. I assume this happened to others and want to find out more about what happened. My current theory is bots targeting electronics and repair based instagram businesses. -
Considering that a single worker like you generates marginal profit, there is no incentive for Facebook to investigate if you are or aren’t a “scam company”. If that is in fact a large incident, possibly including some major accounts, taking action as a group is the easiest option to exert pressure. As a group you have an argument related to both financial and company image aspect of the situation.
-
Also our accounts were not linked or associated in any way shape or form and neither were we as people. I assume this happened to others and want to find out more about what happened. My current theory is bots targeting electronics and repair based instagram businesses.
Well, welcome to the 21 century, where a tech company's is the judge, a bunch of teenagers with the attention span of 2 seconds and a dislike button is the jury, and the loss of income is the executioner. -
You really have to question the wisdom of even dealing with these mega corporations. Not a one of the employees at these places have any idea what it is like to run a one man company.
As for Instagram you could always try finding a lawyer that can take on the cause for a cut of the action. Problem is even if you won, the damages wouldn't be enough to even pay the lawyers boat payments. -
Its totally impossible to ever speak to a real person at any of these companies. Its like they are not composed of humans. I find it ironic that they are always accusing others of being bots.
-
They are composed of software engineers.
(I am an SE myself so I know what I'm talking about.) -
where a tech company's is the judge
Deciding what someone(or a person or system to which this responsibility was delegated) does in their own company is an 21th century invention? The sound of me scratching my head intensifies…As for Instagram you could always try finding a lawyer that can take on the cause for a cut of the action. Problem is even if you won, the damages wouldn't be enough to even pay the lawyers boat payments.
And what would be the legal basis for paying damages? Was there any breach of agreement? Facebook withdrawn from it and I do not recall any provisions that would prevent either party from doing so or having any financial obligations towards the other side. Correct me if there are any.
-
People, people, people...Do not base your living income on (anti)social media. Get a real job. Better yet, do not use them at all. You will soon feel much better. You will feel free. Not depending on some stupid cyber mob.
-
my business didnt depend on instagram anyway just was a major source of traffic and community engagement
-
This is why such banning can be so damaging to a business. A business might not "depend" upon social media but it can certainly have an impact on traffic.my business didnt depend on instagram anyway just was a major source of traffic and community engagement
-
People, people, people...Do not base your living income on (anti)social media. Get a real job.
Posted at eevblog.com
-
This is why such banning can be so damaging to a business. A business might not "depend" upon social media but it can certainly have an impact on traffic.
Did Facebook made any promises regarding how long will they allow OP to use the service? Any obligations in case they stop offering it?
While it’s sad sahko123 lost the opportunity to share their content on that platform and I would be happy to hear they found a solution, jumping on Facebook seems to me unfounded. It’s totally up to Facebook to decide how to shape content. Of course you are free to disagree, but first you should consider consequences a different opinion has in other contexts.my business didnt depend on instagram anyway just was a major source of traffic and community engagement
Earlier, while editing my post, I accidently deleted a fragment. Aside from other creators, consider involving followers.
-
Simple question: Should the phone company be allowed to determine whom you can talk to and even if you can use the service in a normal way? This is the fundamental problem with communications concentrated into too few companies. It is even more of a problem when there isn't a way to rectify mistakes like are being described here.
It really looks like a script kiddy ran a script that deleted a bunch of accounts based on some unknown reason. That might not be a problem if there was a way to address software gone bad but in this case the user is being judged in an arbitrary manner with little recourse to address the problem.This is why such banning can be so damaging to a business. A business might not "depend" upon social media but it can certainly have an impact on traffic.
Did Facebook made any promises regarding how long will they allow OP to use the service? Any obligations in case they stop offering it?
While it’s sad sahko123 lost the opportunity to share their content on that platform and I would be happy to hear they found a solution, jumping on Facebook seems to me unfounded. It’s totally up to Facebook to decide how to shape content. Of course you are free to disagree, but first you should consider consequences a different opinion has in other contexts.my business didnt depend on instagram anyway just was a major source of traffic and community engagement
Earlier, while editing my post, I accidently deleted a fragment. Aside from other creators, consider involving followers. -
It really looks like a script kiddy ran a script that deleted a bunch of accounts based on some unknown reason.
Which may be used as an argument. But first people affected must reach Facebook and convince it that they’re a valuable asset and ignoring them will bring harm to company’s image. Which is easier in a group, as a single person may only expect being treated as a nuisance to be shrugged off.Simple question: Should the phone company be allowed to determine whom you can talk to and even if you can use the service in a normal way? This is the fundamental problem with communications concentrated into too few companies. It is even more of a problem when there isn't a way to rectify mistakes like are being described here.
“Should” is a deceptive word, as there is too many perspectives for its interpretation. Unless some qualification is provided, that question has no direct answer.
But it doesn’t need to have one either, because that comparison is wrong. You can’t take just any company X, compare it to a particular class of companies doing Y and then claim that because some specific rules apply to companies doing Y, company X also has to be a subject to them — despite it’s not doing Y. Facebook is not a telecommunication company. Communication between users is merely means of achieving the goal, not the goal itself.
Sadly, this reveals weird ideas people have about entities such as Facebook or Alphabet. Which is quite a success, just like Amazon convincing people that they’re an online shopping platform. Both of them are focused on selling personal data and advertisements to customers and most services offered to other people are crafted to achieve that. And people delude themselves thinking they are customers, while they are asset or, more often, liability.
In the case of Instagram: as a content consumer, you are exchanging your personal data for a service of presenting you with images and associated features; as a content creator you are working on attracting them in exchange for a place to show some images and, if you are smart, do some promotion of your person/company/organization. No strings attached, no obligations beyond that. For either side.
Nothing like what telecoms’ services are. To telecoms you are a customer and their business model is based on you paying them for the service of offering you means to communicate. Even if some try to venture into spying on users, it’s only an additional source of income. -
In short, phone companies would be fine controlling who you are talking to if they made money by eavesdropping on your calls. Then you are an asset rather than a customer and hence the practice doesn't violate the sacred laws of Capitalism.
By the way, aren't you a software engineer too by any chance?
-
In short, phone companies would be fine controlling who you are talking to if they made money by eavesdropping on your calls. Then you are an asset rather than a customer and hence the practice doesn't violate the sacred laws of Capitalism.
Is that response to me? If yes: producing a strawman? Stop twisting my words and responding to things I never said — someone less attentive might think your answer makes sense.By the way, aren't you a software engineer too by any chance?
Indeed. What’s so funny about that?
Of course if me being a dev makes my advice useless, anyone is free to give a better one.
-
As businesses depend on these companies and devote a lot of energy to producing content that the Internet companies basically milk for profit, they need to be regulated much more so that peoples efforts wont be wasted or stolen by them.
I heard countless stories similar to this one recently. It seems Facebook, and Instagram are now acting like Twitter and arbitrarily deleting accounts people have put years of work into.
There should be phone numbers and real people and an ombudsman and consistent process of grievance resolution at each one, to resolve peoples problems with them fairly and in a timely manner.. Soon. Or else they should be broken up - or externally regulated in a fair way, As they are becoming monopolies. -
In short, phone companies would be fine controlling who you are talking to if they made money by eavesdropping on your calls. Then you are an asset rather than a customer and hence the practice doesn't violate the sacred laws of Capitalism.
By the way, aren't you a software engineer too by any chance?
Don't they sell the information of who you connect to? I am pretty sure they do, and that that is a big part of their surveillance-based business models. Based on a document that I saw several years ago on wiklileaks.
Governments are constantly asking them for information on people, and getting charged hefty fees for that info. -
my solution was to just create a new account and just add an underscore thankfully it had a small following of mainly people i knew (roughly 32 followers) anyway so not much damage done. But what i posted wasnt against anyrules or guidelines just random photos of what i was doing. Instagram didnt ban me cause they wanted to they banned me because of some dumb shit report bot
-
In short, phone companies would be fine controlling who you are talking to if they made money by eavesdropping on your calls. Then you are an asset rather than a customer and hence the practice doesn't violate the sacred laws of Capitalism.
By the way, aren't you a software engineer too by any chance?
Don't they sell the information of who you connect to? I am pretty sure they do, and that that is a big part of their surveillance-based business models. Based on a document that I saw several years ago on wiklileaks.
Governments are constantly asking them for information on people, and getting charged hefty fees for that info.
They make their money by selling information - that you provide to them in exchange for their service. By using their service, you agree to this. Whilst I don't particularly like this, what some seem to not get, or just ignore is that, these services cost money - and if you are not paying a fee, then you pay for it in other ways. It seems you want to be able to use their services for free, but then complain that they are using your information to make their money. -
In short, phone companies would be fine controlling who you are talking to if they made money by eavesdropping on your calls. Then you are an asset rather than a customer and hence the practice doesn't violate the sacred laws of Capitalism.
By the way, aren't you a software engineer too by any chance?
Don't they sell the information of who you connect to? I am pretty sure they do, and that that is a big part of their surveillance-based business models. Based on a document that I saw several years ago on wiklileaks.
Governments are constantly asking them for information on people, and getting charged hefty fees for that info.
They make their money by selling information - that you provide to them in exchange for their service. By using their service, you agree to this. Whilst I don't particularly like this, what some seem to not get, or just ignore is that, these services cost money - and if you are not paying a fee, then you pay for it in other ways. It seems you want to be able to use their services for free, but then complain that they are using your information to make their money.
Are there alternatives? These companies now have most people on board, so if you want to reach them... you've got to use them. -
Yes, a company cannot do whatever they want.where a tech company's is the judge
Deciding what someone(or a person or system to which this responsibility was delegated) does in their own company is an 21th century invention? The sound of me scratching my head intensifies…As for Instagram you could always try finding a lawyer that can take on the cause for a cut of the action. Problem is even if you won, the damages wouldn't be enough to even pay the lawyers boat payments.
And what would be the legal basis for paying damages? Was there any breach of agreement? Facebook withdrawn from it and I do not recall any provisions that would prevent either party from doing so or having any financial obligations towards the other side. Correct me if there are any.
If you want to dump dangerous waste material in the ground on your company premises, the environment agency will fine you.
You cannot fire employees without a reason. They very well may sue you for doing such thing and win.
Deleting someone's account, that relies on the income from that account is similar to firing someone. There isn't a law from protecting you from that. There should be. Internet is too new a deregulated. -
[...] Internet is too new a deregulated.
Exactly, it is as if our politicians, and legal system, are 10 or 20 years behind the times.
If someone says or does something on-line that is against the law, it shouldn't be up to private companies to deal with it... it should be a legal (civil or criminal) matter, like in the real world!
-
my solution was to just create a new account and just add an underscore
But that is only offsetting the problem for the time being. If that has really hit many accounts, hopefully also some important ones, this is the moment you all may take some action to at least try to oppose. Have you tried messaging Dave and asking him for advice/opinion? You know, he has quite some experience and he has seen such occurrences in the past.
What I would be worried about in your case is not Facebook making a dumb mistake from not caring about small accounts like yours. One of the possible scenarios is that some scammer was replicating your content and your account, indistinguishable from theirs, was nuked along with them. In such a case that may happen again.Yes, a company cannot do whatever they want. If you want to dump dangerous waste material in the ground on your company premises, the environment agency will fine you.
Perhaps this statement is true, but that comparison invalid for reasons similar to what I have shown in my earlier response to wizard69.You cannot fire employees without a reason. They very well may sue you for doing such think and win.
Again, the same mistake: false parallel. OP is not an employee of Facebook and the forces that shape this engagement do not even work the same way. At best that style of comparison could be made to consider content creators underpaid workers — so underpaid that it by no chance can be considered viable income.
Deleting someone's account, that relies on the income from that account is similar to firing someone. There isn't a law from protecting you from that. There should be. Internet is too new a deregulated.
Just because someone finds a way to earn larger money using a service, is in the lucky 0.01% of those who manage to profit and then decides to turn it their major income source, doesn’t make entity offering the service responsible for the income. This kind of reasoning instantly leads to absurd conclusions if applied to nearly any other similar case. Of course to me it doesn’t matter: not sticking here to any absolute statements, so one may as well believe that… as long as they’re consistent. With that type of reactions one is not.
To make it clear, I’m not trying to argue there isn’t a problem and I’m not blind to it. There is, however, huge difference between noticing a problem and pointless bashing.
-
Personally I have never seen the need to have a FB, twitter, or Instagram account. I see absolutely no value is these services. Just a bunch of lemmings following other lemmings over the cliff.