[HN Gopher] Ask HN: Should Instagram add labels indicating an im...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: Should Instagram add labels indicating an image used
filters?
I think we Instagram should indicate whether or not an image had
filters applied to them. This will still allow folks to enhance
images, but at the same time inform users that the image has been
enhanced and improved. Therefore informing the viewer, what you're
seeing is a mixing of reality and illusion.
Author : codemonkeysh
Score : 88 points
Date : 2022-05-22 13:35 UTC (9 hours ago)
| orthecreedence wrote:
| Instagram is a platform dedicated to presenting fabrication. The
| entire point is to create a better version of yourself. An
| unrealistically perfect distillation of all of your best
| qualities.
|
| Why on earth would instagram want to break this illusion in any
| way? Their entire existence is in service to the illusion.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| Why can't it be about sharing cool photos you took?
|
| People need to stop pointing the camera at themselves. The
| world is so much more beautiful.
| jakear wrote:
| > People need to stop pointing the camera at themselves. The
| world is so much more beautiful.
|
| Uh what? People don't need to do anything. You might think
| the world is prettier without all the divas in it, and I
| might be of the same opinion. Doesn't mean anyone else needs
| to change. Just follow the accounts you like, mute the ones
| you don't but 'need' to follow (friends, etc.)
| tomc1985 wrote:
| With ads every other or third post or so, you don't get
| nearly as much control over your feed as you think.
|
| > Just follow the accounts you like, mute the ones you
| don't but 'need' to follow (friends, etc.)
|
| If I had a penny for every time someone here casually drops
| such milquetoast advice (that DOESNT WORK), I'd be rich.
| jakear wrote:
| Goalposts drifting faster than my kayak in a windstorm.
|
| First you say there's too many faces, I give you an easy
| solution. Now you say there's too many ads, I say to make
| a script that pulls in latest images from a set of
| accounts using Instagram's Basic Display API.
|
| Next you'll probably say you don't want to do any actual
| work, but also won't pay someone else to do work, in
| which case I have no solutions.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| My point is that a casual "just change your feed
| settings," answer, which signals an implicit approval for
| a shitty status quo, doesn't work.
|
| What I want is for people to change. For society to stop
| navel-gazing. For people to get over themselves. It's
| idealistic, for sure. But I am an idealist.
|
| And for the record, those ads are going to show you more
| obnoxiously smiley faces, but this time they're hawking
| some bullshit product on top of it. So unless you can
| make the ads go away, whatever you set your feed to won't
| matter.
| jakear wrote:
| Literally write a script. The scripts other people are
| paid to write aren't going to help you if you refuse to
| participate in their profit model.
|
| If you want something to exist either finance it or make
| it. Don't whine that other people aren't building it for
| free. I'm thankful the API even exists, it'd be easy for
| them to keep their walled garden totally isolated.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| Yes, let's remedy the problem by throwing in _another_
| solution in an already crowded marketplace. Burning
| thousands of hours grinding away at something that most
| likely won 't take.
|
| Hollywood has thousands if not millions of people
| literally "writing their own script". 99% of them won't
| get anywhere with it, wasting time and years of their
| life on a fruitless endeavor. Those are shit odds, and I
| don't see why society in general would be any different.
|
| Don't let survivor bias cloud your judgement.
|
| Much better to simply rip profits off the scalps of this
| contemptible society and revel in its few pleasures with
| a tribe of likeminded discontents. We can all watch the
| world burn together, and bitch about how much better life
| would be if regular folks didn't suck so much.
| jakear wrote:
| What are you talking about dude? I'm just saying
| integrate with instagrams existing api to make your own
| personal viewer with the contents you want. Where are you
| getting thousands of hours, crowded marketplaces, and
| Hollywood from?
|
| It'd take a 1,000 line html file and a couple serverless
| functions running on some free tier (CORS...), maximum.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| I don't see how some HTML and a bunch of serverless code
| is going to fix the problem of instagram constantly
| indulging me in vanity and emotionally manipulative
| bullshit. The only thing it will do is lock me into a
| cycle of maintenance and updating all the the mercy of
| whatever this free tier is and the API that it connects
| to.
|
| And neither is building my own solution going to change
| anything. That is my point. You can't innovate your way
| out of people polluting the commons for their own selfish
| bullshit, because even if you do they will just pile on
| once it becomes big enough and ruin that too.
|
| Also, fuck serverless. Like hell I'm going to let my
| stuff exist at the pleasure of some corpo that can change
| its mind at any time. Own your code.
| jakear wrote:
| You just follow the accounts that post content you like.
| There are plenty that don't post any faces at all. Hell,
| it'd be trivial to detect when a face is present in a
| photo and filter it out. The API doesn't serve ads, so
| your complaint there is mute.
|
| > The only thing it will do is lock me into a cycle of
| maintenance and updating all the the mercy of whatever
| this free tier is and the API that it connects to. And
| neither is building my own solution going to change
| anything.
|
| > Also, fuck serverless. Like hell I'm going to let my
| stuff exist at the pleasure of some corpo that can change
| its mind at any time. Own your code.
|
| Hilarious coming from the person refusing to own any
| code. Sure, host your own server on your own rack
| connected to your own ISP. See what I care.
| xcambar wrote:
| Helping teenagers and adults alike to read an explicit mention
| of image manipulation can certainly remove some self-criticism
| that many Instagram consumers impose to themselves.
| codemonkeysh wrote:
| I have a lot to say, but I'll try to keep it brief.
|
| 1. Would this take away the illusion? I think it'll just inform
| people of what they already know; it's not 100% real. The
| indicator will only serve to reduce the anxiety and depression
| in some folks by reminding them that what you say isn't 100%
| real.
|
| I don't think Instagram wasn't to be a service of unhappiness
| and illusion. That would destroy their brand and I honestly
| don't believe the people working at Meta have such ill
| intentions. I think they do take pride in having a large number
| of users and a large number of people who are generally
| speaking, happy to use the service, but don't fully realize how
| deeply it can impact impressionable folks.
|
| All that being said, a lot of people are starting to have
| negative emotions about Meta and similar companies because of
| a) their success b) their social impact and c) along with both
| of these some pretty deep negative impacts that I believe Zuck
| and the many workers that never intended. Basically, it's a
| negative by product.
|
| This is all an opinion and I could be full of shit.
| incone123 wrote:
| I've done Photoshop work for images which were for someone's
| Instagram. It won't be able to label those as filtered.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| It would be great for mental health and the users and bad for the
| bottom line and the fake reality that makes all their profits; so
| no they won't do it.
| dymk wrote:
| A disclaimer about a filter isn't going to change the reaction
| of somebody who would already feel insecure by seeing a filter.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| People would simply apply filters before uploading it to
| Instagram. All this would do is making built-in filters worse.
| [deleted]
| junon wrote:
| Cool so I just improve my images outside the app using a
| different app as a workaround.
| gabereiser wrote:
| Oh, so like I do for TikTok? Easy.
| csw-001 wrote:
| So what about the inverse? Mark any photo taken within the app
| and uploaded without modification as "Authentic"?
| thih9 wrote:
| What about people who want to make "Authentic" photos outside
| of the app?
|
| E.g. people who prefer another camera app, or photographers
| who use a camera instead of their phone.
| gruez wrote:
| And what's preventing you from aiming your phone at a
| monitor? Sure, people might notice if you're aiming at your
| $200 monitor, but with a high DPI, high brightness, wide
| color gamut monitor you can probably get away with it.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Analog filters exist, too. They might not be as great as
| their digital equivalent in some cases, but people really
| want to fake #nofilter and it's basically impossible to
| detect.
| csw-001 wrote:
| It's about instituting a level of messaging to shift
| culture and promote authentic photos - not build fool-proof
| security.
| petepete wrote:
| I think this would put Android users at a huge disadvantage
| because of the way the app works (it takes a screenshot of
| what's on the display).
|
| This might have changed, haven't really used the app for a
| couple of years.
| Snowworm wrote:
| What? That sounds really stupid. Could you provide a
| source?
|
| Even if Instagram does that, they can still modify the app
| to take pictures properly. That's definitely not a
| limitation with Android. The only problem I can see with
| this is people modifying the picture header to become the
| edited photo instead of a legitimate one (either with a
| rooted phone or a modified request on pc). There's not
| really any way for Instagram to properly verify this.
| petepete wrote:
| I might have confused the screenshotting the viewfinder
| with Snapchat[0], it looks like Instagram was just poorly
| optimised[1]
|
| [0] https://www.androidpolice.com/2021/02/22/the-
| galaxy-s21-is-t...
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagram/comments/downdc/_/
| ksec wrote:
| May be an Instagram "clone" where only photos taken within the
| App's internal camera function with no editing allowed.
| dragonmost wrote:
| You can't just make up a new social media site and expect
| everyone to join. Especially if it's more limiting then the
| billion dollar company product you're trying to compete with.
| ushakov wrote:
| are you a plastic surgeon?
|
| i'd imagine there would be a lot demand by instagram celebrities
| who would want to keep looking like their filters once the truth
| is uncovered
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| and how would you stop people from modifying the image in another
| program before uploading it?
| capableweb wrote:
| A solution doesn't have to be perfect to be valuable. Catching
| 90% of the cases can sometimes be good enough to have a large
| impact.
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| yes it would have some impact - by elevating the 10% above
| the fold
| moneywoes wrote:
| yes, however people would just find ways to avoid the filer
| clircle wrote:
| Should a movie display a warning banner that special effects are
| being used?
| xenocratus wrote:
| You can look at C2PA [1] as an attempt to track image (and other
| type of media) authenticity, processing, and so on.
|
| [1] https://c2pa.org/
| iamben wrote:
| More importantly, I think ads should have a separate tab. If your
| post is an #ad, 'ad', paid partnership (or anything other way
| that influencers use to _just_ fit in with the rules), the photo
| /video should be put in there. It should be more or less
| permanent (short of appealing for removal) - so there's thought
| behind posting.
|
| If you're happy to get paid for it, we should overtly know it's
| paid for and that you stand behind. Let's hold influencers
| responsible for the shit they post.
| simonswords82 wrote:
| Yes
| dkasper wrote:
| This already exists if you use the filters in the app. In fact
| it's one of the ways cool new filters go viral. But lots of
| people use other apps to edit photos and upload them and IG has
| no way of knowing what happened to those unless there's something
| I'm missing?
| jasode wrote:
| A meta comment about some of the replies...
|
| I think many replies are over-interpreting op's wording of _"
| image filters applied"_ as being generalized to _any image
| manipulation_ so having an algorithm determine it is unrealistic
| and pointless. (E.g. Does a camera 's builtin noise reduction
| count as image manipulation?!? etc etc)
|
| Regardless of the imprecise original wording, the intended
| question is probably much more mundane: Should a label be applied
| when a user uses _Instagram app 's builtin filters?_
|
| Yes, even the easier solution to that narrower scoped question
| has dubious value. Nevertheless, I think that's the op's intended
| idea.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The API _used_ to tell you which filter was used; I remember a
| Tumblr blog titled "No Filter" or something like that; it
| curated photos with #nofilter but filter data in the output.
|
| https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/you-sure-you-used...
| balaji1 wrote:
| meta comment about the whole situation:
|
| Do we need to be taking so many photos, videos and short videos
| (shorts, reels, etc)? Do we need to be sharing all of them?
| balaji1 wrote:
| I think there needs to be an app that rewards reducing screen
| time / social media. Yes I need a crutch to keep my behavior
| in check. I like how the iPhone gamifies "you screen time
| down 27% this week..." and for the record, I was up 37% this
| week sigh...
| Sebb767 wrote:
| The OP said:
|
| > Therefore informing the viewer, what you're seeing is a
| mixing of reality and illusion.
|
| In my opinion, showing just the Instagram filters is worse in
| that case, since using any other filter (i.e. Photoshop,
| Camera-integrated or analog) will not be shown and people might
| think this is a realistic picture when it really is not.
|
| There is some artistic and marketing value in showing the
| filter, but not for the use-case outlined by the OP.
| bittercynic wrote:
| I think this fits into a larger pattern where someone asks a
| question that touches on an area where they don't understand
| (or maybe just don't care) that there is a lot of complexity
| someone will have to deal with, and even then results will be
| far from perfect. The asker might know this, but think that a
| partial solution is better than the current situation.
| HKH2 wrote:
| It'd be quite useful to have a browser plugin that shows
| irregularities in photos.
| gelstudios wrote:
| Why do you think that most viewers would get from an "image has
| filter" indicator?
|
| I imagine most people _know_ when a filter has been applied.
|
| Image modification via filters / sliders / tools are built into
| the product and a core part of the user-generated content
| creation loop, at this point any image on instagram is expected
| to have a filter applied.
|
| Is there a threshold for "not reality"? Sharpening and color
| representation in digital images are already illusions.
|
| What's your suggestion for images edited outside of the instagram
| app? I did not look for any statistics but if you take a cursory
| glance at the "explore" section of instagram, I'd argue that most
| of the images were taken with a DSLR or a camera not built into
| the device that posted the image. So it's likely those images
| went through some form of modification and enhancement.
|
| If the concern is for viewers being deceived by these images, I
| think it more likely that viewers are deceived by the "story"
| behind the image, than the image itself.
| fortran77 wrote:
| No. All images use filters. What comes off the image sensor is
| just a bunch of numbers. Something has to be done -- which always
| involves compromises and choices, there's no one correct solution
| -- to make an image that can be viewed on a range of display
| devices.
|
| And I think the whole premise is wrong. You're trying to make
| people not feel bad about themselves because they may see an
| image and have some psychological consequences? I'm not sure that
| these concerns are on a firm footing.
| rognjen wrote:
| My pet peeve is the fact that Instagram has a label for when
| something is a paid promotion but it is so infrequently used and
| poorly enforced that it might as well not exist.
|
| It's within the same realm as the OPs argument as to what is real
| and what isn't.
| [deleted]
| vogt wrote:
| Seems in line with cookie pop ups, COVID disclosure banners, and
| all the other modern web cruft that doesn't deliver value.
| jmrm wrote:
| This would totally make those filters users pretty angry: They
| want to enhance the pictures without nobody noticing that. I
| don't think Meta would allow that.
|
| PS: Have a peek on r/Instagramreality ;-)
| cronix wrote:
| How about we just put a popup on all of our devices warning us
| that what we are about to experience is not reality each time we
| use it. Why is this unique to instagram? Should they also be
| forced to get a notarized statement using documents proving every
| word they post is also accurate?
| simplehuman wrote:
| What's the fun in that?
| perardi wrote:
| What is an illusion and what is reality? How do I present an
| objective true image with a camera?
|
| And this is not some superficially dumb dorm room philosophy
| rambling. I can stand in one spot and get a radically different
| photo depending on the focal length of lens I choose. Ignoring
| time of day, ignoring weather, what is the "reality" I should be
| presenting?
|
| https://digital-photography-school.com/wide-angle-versus-tel...
|
| Ignore all the "filtering" stuff. _(Which, of course, you cannot
| possibly have an un-filtered digital photo, there is a Bayer
| filter array in front of the sensor, literally every photo is
| filtered or else it would be in black and white.)_ Am I
| presenting reality accurately if I shoot someone with an 85mm
| lens versus a 35mm lens? What if I use lighting? What if I have
| them stand so they're looking at me over their shoulder instead
| of straight on? What if I coach them to smile a bit? Is a model
| in a studio with a big softbox light an illusion or reality?
| xcambar wrote:
| You could have started on a consensual definition of
| "unfiltered photography" with OP and share some valid ideas to
| fuel the conversation instead.
| misnome wrote:
| How do you define "not enhanced", and how would you get an image
| that hasn't been somewhat filtered and interpreted by camera
| software or hardware?
| [deleted]
| donatj wrote:
| Why? I don't understand why it even matters. The colors are
| different and someone's pimples are hidden? The filters on
| Instagram aren't worth worrying about.
|
| Everything presented to you is at the very least cherry picked
| and not "reality". That's why it's presented in the first place.
| That's what is worth worrying about, abuse of context.
| JCharante wrote:
| Just assume everything is manipulated and then you never have
| to worry about filtered or not again.
|
| Even in real life people look dramatically different with and
| without makeup. People seeing pictures and not realizing they
| have filters applied is like seeing people with makeup and not
| realizing they're wearing makeup.
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| So basically a trigger warning for the mentally weak to manage
| their crippling envy?
| peppermint_tea wrote:
| So basically a trigger warning for our teenagers to manage
| their suicidal tendencies?
|
| https://www.aljazeera.com/program/fault-lines/2022/5/4/a-tox...
|
| you're welcome
|
| P.S : I agree with all the technical
| complications/impossibilities that comes with such an idea but
| the idea remains good.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Digital cameras have built-in image processing already. (You're
| not seeing data directly from the sensor.)
|
| The iPhone portrait mode is a good example of this. That's a
| filter by any reasonable definition of the term.
|
| Where's the threshold between image filtering done to _capture_ a
| better version of what the sensor saw and image filtering to
| _create_ a better version of what the sensor saw?
| ISL wrote:
| All digital images displayed on a smartphone involve some degree
| of manipulation and choice.
|
| By default, those choices are made by engineers but they are not
| always "correct".
|
| Take a photo of a beautiful sunset with auto white-balance and it
| will appear to have less color than the real thing.
|
| By default, most smartphone cameras trade away some contrast in
| favor of dynamic range, too.
| cerved wrote:
| When developing a negative you choose how to process the film,
| which developer, dilution, agitation and time. When you print
| you choose contrast filter, dodge and burn. All photographs,
| analog or digital, are processed to some degree
| neltnerb wrote:
| Hacker News lets you make polls.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21231804
|
| It seems silly to me to bother replying with a comment that just
| says "Yes" but I guess to elaborate I think that there's clear
| evidence that a ton of post processing is harmful to people's
| body image perception. A marking that makes clear this is not a
| "real photo of a real person" would make a ton of anxiety go away
| without literally regulating away the fun parts of photo editing.
|
| I think it's fantastic to incentivize people posting photos that
| are unedited beyond brightness and contrast (ignoring focus and
| stuff) even though I know just photo composition is enough to
| significantly alter a photo already. I've taken enough
| photography courses to know that a good photo looks much better
| than a bad photo even without airbrushing. But at least it's
| based on the physical world still rather than entirely in an
| algorithm, I don't know where else you'd draw a line even if
| there is a little grey area.
| codemonkeysh wrote:
| So what you're saying is that your reply isn't a yes/no it's
| more in-depth?
|
| I'm not seeking a yes/no answer. I'm seeking opinions of what
| people think not just about the idea, but the issue at hand
| with instagram without censorship or complex policies.
| neltnerb wrote:
| Ah, okay then. I thought you were hoping to get a straw poll
| of what people think of the idea, in which case I'd have
| simply said "yes" because I don't think my reasoning is very
| original.
| halotrope wrote:
| I recently photographed a Tiger (The big cat, in the Zoo...) with
| the iPhone 13 Pro Camera. It looked like a comic drawing with
| exaggerated stripes and weird artifacts in the face. The whole
| pipeline from the photons hitting the sensor of the photographer
| to being emitted from your phones screen again is just layers and
| layers of optimization, compression and enhancement. Completely
| compromised. I think we are getting very close to a point where
| photography cannot be assumed to depict the real world by
| default.
|
| It is unfortunate as the reality that the brain constructs seems
| to be based on this fake reality of everyone being unnaturally
| perfect and attractive. This seems to work even against better
| knowledge. No wonder we have a teenage mental health crisis. I
| would not be surprised if social media will get the same have the
| same curve of public opinion as smoking once had.
| ducaale wrote:
| This reminds me of Huawei's moon mode
| https://in.mashable.com/tech/3114/are-the-moon-shots-from-th...
|
| Smartphone Camera vs Reality https://youtu.be/MZ8giCWDcyE
| formerly_proven wrote:
| You're looking at a 1/3.4" OF image sensor with 1um pitch, and
| an f/2.8 lens - not only is the sensor tiny, but the pixels are
| _extremely tiny_ *, and it's fairly diffraction limited as
| well. If you had a raw image from this sensor, you'd notice how
| it's very noisy even at base gain and brightly lit conditions.
| Base sensitivity images from sensors with much larger pixels
| tend to still be quite visibly noisy!
|
| No surprise that the image you get in the end is mostly ML
| fabrication cued by some noisy inputs.
|
| * For "pixel-scale reference", on a standard full-frame camera,
| 1um pitch would result in some ~900 MP of resolution. The
| pixels are _that tiny_ here.
| can16358p wrote:
| Should they? Probably (perhaps in somewhere like "more info" not
| to clutter the UI).
|
| Would they? No! Why would they want to break the part of the
| illusive loop that keeps people attached to endlesz scrolling?
| People don't want to see the reality, they want to see "perfect"
| shots, "perfect" bodies and don't want anyone to wake them up to
| the reality telling that what they are experiencing is not real.
| arbor_day wrote:
| Of the negative effects of IG, knowing which photos have been
| digitally altered doesn't seem high on the list. I'm not sure who
| you'd be significantly helping with this feature.
|
| Even if this does solve a user problem, it'd be difficult to make
| this label accurate for photos altered outside the app. An
| inaccurate label might be much worse than not having a label.
| xwdv wrote:
| It will be bad for mental health as now people will filter photos
| or videos externally and won't have a disclaimer that they've
| been filtered, giving a mentally weak user the impression that
| these are real images guaranteed.
| peppermint_tea wrote:
| can you try to replace "mentally weak user" by "gullible
| teenager"?
|
| Although both are correct, one denote a blaming approach and
| the other one a more empathetic note.
| dalmo3 wrote:
| > inform users that the image has been enhanced and improved
|
| They could just add a statement to their ToS that all photos on
| the platform have been algorithmically enhanced and/or
| compressed.
| idonov wrote:
| They already added that to stories
| csydas wrote:
| I get the goal but I don't think it really addresses the main
| issue which is that what you're looking at is already a heavily
| curated stream of photos taken in very specific ways to suppose a
| specific kind of life-style.
|
| One of my friends is pretty into managing their instagram within
| what I consider a normal and reasonable amount. Usually this
| means that the highlights of our lives are briefly arranged in
| the most photogenic way. If someone unfamiliar with us was to
| check my friend's instagram, probably they'd imagine someone who
| lives a pretty lavish lifestyle filled with amazing meals,
| delicious cocktails all the time, and a beautiful life all the
| time. This is mostly just the result of carefully chosen and
| staged pictures creating a stream that shows the best parts of
| life.
|
| Influencers likely do the same, but with slightly more tricks;
| the cutest trick I learned was that the majority of mirror
| selfies are anything but, and actually are shot with a pretty
| decent DSLR that's positioned to stay out of the shot. The photo
| is then cropped to phone dimensions and uploaded and 'whoosh',
| camera quality better than even the best iPhone can take with the
| perception that "oh, I just shot this on the fly".
|
| Basically, I'm not suggesting that a solution needs to be perfect
| to be implemented, but I am suggesting that I think the
| suggestion misses the main reason that instagram lives feel so
| much more glorious and out of reach for most people; there is a
| lot of time and effort put into making a strong and effective
| instagram stream beyond instagram filters. Seriously, try it out
| -- try _just_ using your phone and instagram filters to copy some
| of the most popular feeds, and likely you'll get close a few
| times, but fail to capture the same look and feel. The physical
| production values that is required for a well curated feed goes
| far beyond just the technical, and even with just a basic
| smartphone camera, a few simple camera tricks and taking the time
| to prepare you shot goes a long ways into making instagram work.
| dymk wrote:
| Not really. I don't care if somebody uses a sepia filter or
| facetune.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-22 23:02 UTC)