[HN Gopher] No Instagram, no privacy
___________________________________________________________________
No Instagram, no privacy
Author : wouterjanl
Score : 108 points
Date : 2025-05-05 15:37 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.wouterjanleys.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.wouterjanleys.com)
| igor47 wrote:
| i've thought the same thing about email. i run my own email
| server, so i'm one of a very few number of people whose email is
| opaque to gmail. on the other hand -- almost everyone i exchange
| email with uses gmail, so actually gmail has almost all my email
| anyway.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| I bought into mailinabox like 3-4 years ago.
|
| Zero issues since then. First time my emails got into spam but
| after unspamming, it worked.
|
| Havent had issues. I use a cheap racknerd $12/year server so
| its way cheaper than proton or stuff and I have dozens of
| emails across family members.
| AndriyKunitsyn wrote:
| Did you have any problems with Gmail not trusting your server
| and moving your letters to spam?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Don't immediately start hosting your own email on a brand new
| domain especially if you're using a free or very low-cost VPS
| provider.
|
| Pay a bit more for a better reputation provider. Use a domain
| you've owned for a while. Set up all SPF, DKIM, and DMARC
| properly.
|
| Or just pay fastmail to do it for you.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Strong rec to use Fastmail; it's a fantastic, reliable,
| inexpensive service w/ excellent performance and UX.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| I disagree. I followed luke smiths video on email hosting
| and adapted to miab and I was up and running. Checked the
| IP for problems beforehand. Have had to request a different
| IP once.
| ddoolin wrote:
| I didn't have any issues with it. I ran the same server
| straightaway on a new domain maybe 7 years or so, maybe
| more. I recently changed hosts from AWS to somewhere else,
| so the IP changed, etc, and I did have one major e-mail
| provider ding me for a single outgoing e-mail after that,
| but it didn't happen twice and never any issues since then.
| I feel like if you follow all the DNS recommendations, it's
| not a problem anymore.
| chaoskitty wrote:
| You're conflating a few different issues: the newness of a
| domain, and the quality and cost of of your VPS.
|
| Some email providers don't like brand new domains, yes, but
| if a domain is brand new, nobody is going to immediately
| start using it for mission critical things. That's just
| common sense, although now I want to buy a domain to see
| how much of an issue this really is.
|
| The cost and quality of a VPS means very little because if
| a VPS is on a network with a poor reputation, one can
| easily smarthost through a mail provider that has a good
| reputation.
|
| Likewise, people can run servers at home, or they can
| colocate, or whatever, and don't have to run a VPS at all,
| although I think you're just generalizing and aren't
| suggesting that people can't use other servers.
| delusional wrote:
| I've been running a mail server for years. Never had any
| problem. I switched ip a year or two ago and didn't even warm
| up the new one. I do have DKIM and DMARC and that stuff
| though.
|
| I'm sure you'll have some problems if you start serving
| newsletters right away, but as a personal mail server, you
| don't really need to do anything.
|
| I even fucked up the config at one point for a week, and all
| the mail just patiently waited on the senders mail server for
| mine to be up again. I really love email.
| igor47 wrote:
| I run mailman, which requires extra setup with ARC. In
| practice Gmail works pretty well. I've had more issues with
| smaller email providers like ... Umm Microsoft. Yahoo. Once
| someone working for 18F couldn't get my email on their .gov
| address.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Interesting. I never thought about adjusting my message based
| on the email provider they use. Would be hard to do, someone
| could be using their own domain but the email goes through
| Gmail.
| immibis wrote:
| In many cases you could check their MX or SPF records. See
| what advice Google gives to use Gmail on your domain; then
| see if the domain followed that advice.
| paxys wrote:
| "I went on a weekend trip and didn't invite friend A, so I hope
| friend B keeps it a secret and doesn't tell anyone I was there"
| is the kind of social dynamic that people grow out of in high
| school. If you are having trouble with it as an adult then it
| isn't really Instagram's fault. People talk to each other and
| share stuff, and sometimes they talk about you, both online and
| offline. Just live your life without being so bothered about
| offending other people. They are adults as well, and care about
| it less than you think.
| alwa wrote:
| There's value in grace. For all sorts of reasons you might be
| right to do things that make other people feel bad. That's no
| reason to rub their nose in it.
|
| What's the virtue in offending people when you could instead be
| kind?
|
| I know one woman who is having a baby shower, and I know
| another woman who recently dealt with the loss of her child.
| It's not "secrecy" to celebrate the baby shower and avoid
| bringing it up with the recently bereaved, it's respect and
| good taste.
|
| I feel like we used to call it discretion...
| rootnod3 wrote:
| The people being offended could just act like an adult.
|
| If you want to go out with friend A but don't want friend B
| to see it for whatever reason (maybe B has a feud with A),
| then that is a thing between B and A, but not you.
|
| I think the whole point of the OP comment is to just go with
| it. If you don't flauntingly advertise it, it is not your
| fault.
|
| But in a very social media centric world, even if you are
| just a participant in a picture can feel like "flaunting it"
| to 3rd parties.
| ryandrake wrote:
| As someone who doesn't use any social media, this whole
| thread sound exhausting to have to worry about. "I
| shouldn't post X because Y might be offended at Z..." Holy
| crap, I feel vindicated for my decision to entirely stay
| off of this drama machine.
| standardUser wrote:
| > I feel like we used to call it discretion...
|
| That's a stretch, considering previous generations forbid
| people from discussing all manner of life issues and events
| out of "discretion", which in my estimation has been a key
| factor in perpetuating shame and all of the horrifying things
| that come from societal shame.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Secrecy isn't grace or discretion when it comes to vacations
| or baby showers.
|
| Not bringing up a sensitive topic when interacting with
| someone is discretion. Hiding a major life event because it
| might trigger one person is silly.
|
| There's a phase in a big chunk of people's lives where the
| only thing on their social media is about having a baby. If
| you're traumatized by that it's up to you, not everyone else,
| to keep it away from yourself (e.g. stay off social media or
| start a new profile and only follow hyperpop jazz trombone
| and COBOL enthusiasts... or whatever).
|
| Not wanting to share your life on social media is one thing,
| picking and choosing to keep things secret from person A or B
| because of some drama or another is childish.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| As someone whose wife has lost two pregnancies recently,
| please don't assume this kind of thing.
|
| I don't want to be locked out of the joys of celebrating with
| friends due to misguided attempts to protect me. If going to
| a baby shower is going to be a problem, let me decide that.
|
| I'm an adult, and I can use my words to say no for myself.
| For the record, our own experience hasn't kept us from
| enjoying time with pregnant couples, children or babies.
|
| On the other hand, if I found out that my friends were
| excluding me or my wife from social events, I would actually
| be upset at having my agency removed.
|
| If the person suffering the loss has asked to not be
| included, that is different.
| paxys wrote:
| If a random guest came to me on my wedding day and said "I
| don't want you to post any photos of this event online
| because one of my friends just lost their spouse and I don't
| want them to see me at a wedding at this time", my response
| would (rightly) be - I'm sorry for their loss but that isn't
| going to stop me from celebrating my day in whatever way I
| see fit. Yes I obviously wouldn't go out of my way to call
| and tell the grieving person about how much fun I had, but
| people understand that life goes on, and the entire world
| doesn't have to be sanitized to meet individual people's
| preferences.
| mjevans wrote:
| Less 'keep it secret' and more 'don't make a big public deal
| out of private memories'.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| is a group trip a private memory?
| citizenpaul wrote:
| Depends. Are you a spoilt rotten rich kid? Thats the only
| place I've seen this dynamic play out.
| rapnie wrote:
| Yes, a big difference between 'telling your friends' in an
| offline social setting and _broadcasting_ it online.
| wouterjanl wrote:
| Good points! Totally agree that people care less than you
| think, and it's very healthy to live your life without thinking
| you have to please everyone all the time. The nuance I tried to
| make, but I was perhaps not really clear, is that when people
| talk with each other, people have the chance to make sure a
| message comes across so that it does not offend a person. That
| chance for nuance is lost when people post on social media. Not
| that people do it deliberately, it's just that social media is
| designed to be focused on the poster rather than on how that
| message makes certain people in the audience feel. And I do
| believe people are bothered not to offend someone, and that
| they are less likely to do so when you actually talk.
| hammock wrote:
| Not really. It hurts people's feelings to find out they weren't
| invited to something they thought they should have been.
| Protecting feelings and smoothing out awkward social dynamics
| are the the category of "very adult."
|
| As a more general example, you wouldn't talk about a happy hour
| you were going to after work with people who weren't
| invited/aren't invited/you wouldn't invite. I believe every
| sitcom on the planet has at least one episode with this lesson
| in it.
| w29UiIm2Xz wrote:
| It's both things. Being an adult means not being overly
| bothered if you weren't invited, and it's also very adult to
| prevent the situation where the uninvited friend doesn't find
| out, out of concern for their feelings. Both are simply
| approaching it from different ends.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| I'm in my thirties now, and I have been on my own since I
| was homeless at sixteen. One thing I have learned about
| being an adult is it means that you have no obligation to
| seriously consider any other person's idea of what being an
| adult means.
| CrimsonCape wrote:
| I agree. The above poster is using an example for "adult"
| which seems ridiculously juvenile. If I spent one minute
| of my life figuring out how to "smooth-over" disgruntled
| happy-hour-non-invitees I would be inclined to beat my
| head against a wall on account of the absurdity.
| hammock wrote:
| We are in agreement
| paxys wrote:
| Either you invite them, or you own the decision not to.
| Pointless secrecy and "protecting feelings" doesn't benefit
| anyone.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > Either you invite them, or you own the decision not to.
|
| Define "own the decision not to." Surely you don't mean
| that every time you are planning an event you must
| preemptively inform everyone who is not invited that they
| are not invited, because that's clearly ludicrous.
| bsder wrote:
| Or perhaps you did invite them, they just couldn't make it
| and you don't want to rub their nose in how good a time you
| all had when they may already be feeling disappointed about
| not being able to attend? Especially in the direct
| aftermath of the event?
|
| It's called social etiquette and consideration. Sometimes
| it's misplaced; sometimes it's unneeded. But sometimes it
| _is_ required.
|
| Humans are not machines. Human interactions do not have
| many hard rules.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| It's absolutely the fault of the mechanics and submission of
| our society to surveillance capitalism,
|
| one which has been intentionally cultivated, exploited, and
| capitalized, by Meta,
|
| so yes, it is Instagram's fault. They are the primary party--
| though I do not excuse those complicit with surveillance
| capitalism, meaning every person who continues despite unending
| evidence for how sociopathic and destructive the company, its
| management, and its impact is, to use their products. Which use
| however is also traceable in significant part back to Meta, via
| the ugly mechanics of exploitative and amoral engagement-
| engineering and their exploitation of monopoly.
|
| This is a front upon which they might and should be
| confronted... a class action on behalf of those have not
| consented to participate in surviellance would be a lovely
| thing.
|
| Under the current political shitshow, also in measurable part
| the "fault" of Meta, however, we can expect no such thing.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Lol, Meta apologists everywhere.
|
| Rue the consequences of making working for Meta socially and
| career viable at leisure. Maybe in an El Salvador prison.
| mindslight wrote:
| You're being downvoted for making the point a bit obtusely,
| but the general point is spot on. This culture of broadcast
| sharing with some imagined singlular hivemind is an
| opinionated policy, and certainly not the only way of
| socially interacting. Many people view different groups of
| friends as disparate communities and don't appreciate the
| social context collapse of them mixing. And even if everyone
| is friends, more people coming to an event doesn't always
| make for a better time.
|
| The one-community broadcast-everything model has been
| embraced and encouraged by these surveillance-based
| businesses who don't want you to think too hard why they are
| also privy to all of your communications, and also want to
| drive the maximum number of interactions for "engagement"
| metrics. Non-corporate social media, "indie" web, and group
| chats are much more natural organic patterns of
| communication.
| kcmastrpc wrote:
| I've tried to incorporate the notion that it's none of my
| business what other people think of me. I don't always get it
| right, but having that attitude has helped tremendously on
| reducing my cortisol levels.
| ty6853 wrote:
| This is a huge relief, but it does come at a cost. What other
| people think of you is one of the largest inputs to access to
| jobs, sexual partners, and likelihood you'll be referred or
| witnessed against for prosecution for some inane zoning/HOA
| ordinance or petty crime (whether you did it or not) because
| you're not on someone's good side, etc etc. So the high
| cortisol levels may be warranted from the Darwinist
| perspective.
|
| Having a good thing happen or preventing bad things from
| happening sadly show up as high stakes butterfly effects of
| the perverted social ranking and opinion games.
| CrimsonCape wrote:
| If you look at this from the perspective of the judicial
| system, a huge part of the judicial process exists to
| compel you to be physically present and in-person at a
| court room.
|
| On the other hand, social media is really the pinnacle of
| "the court of public opinion"; people feel more comfortable
| seeing what photos and social groups you appear in as
| evidence of "who you are". He/she appears in <insert well
| established group here> and therefore must be <well-
| established person>.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't think that's a fair reading of the post. They're not
| really complaining about particular friend dynamics where
| they're trying to keep information away from one friend while
| going out with another friend. The complaint is more about the
| society-wide change in norms brought about by social media. I
| don't think the author would complain about one close friend
| calling another close friend and sharing information about a
| trip the author was also on. The problem is that our modern
| norms (and tech) lead to _everyone_ sharing _everything_ with a
| large social network which includes many more people than an
| individual would normally be able to share stories with in
| person.
| throwanem wrote:
| > If you are having trouble with [social dynamics] as an adult
| then it isn't really Instagram's fault.
|
| Are you sure?
| elric wrote:
| Sure, people talk to each other and share stuff. That doesn't
| magically make it ok for people to share stuff about you on a
| (public?) instagram account. There's a huge difference between
| those two dynamics.
|
| It's fine to overshare as much of your life as you're
| comfortable with. But we should be more mindful of how we
| include others in this.
| elAhmo wrote:
| It is perfectly valid and fine thing to say to someone, as an
| adult, that you don't want to be a part of their stories on
| social media.
|
| If they don't respect that, you need a new set of friends.
| firefoxd wrote:
| The social etiquette argument has been thrown away with the bath
| water. You are now the weirdo with something to hide when you are
| not on Instagram or Tiktok.
|
| The term I like is Social Cooling, the subtle way in which people
| change their behavior because they are both present in person and
| online. Have you ever heard some use the term "unalive" in
| person? It's as if they are protecting themselves from an
| algorithm, as if the conversation will be posted online.
| alwa wrote:
| Have you had that experience, of being taken as a weirdo? We
| may move in very different circles, but when I ask to be left
| out of social media posts I'm always met with respect and
| understanding, at least to my face.
|
| If anything, in recent years, I'm met with something closer to
| the respect people afford recovering addicts turning down
| drinks: "oh man, I wish I were off of it too, good for you."
| soupfordummies wrote:
| Be the change you wanna see...
|
| A lot of people thought non-drinkers were kinda weird a decade
| or so ago when drinking wine on morning TV was popular. Now
| half of the beer aisle is N/A offerings.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > You are now the weirdo with something to hide when you are
| not on Instagram or Tiktok.
|
| Definitely _not_ a universal feeling.
| jjulius wrote:
| >You are now the weirdo with something to hide when you are not
| on Instagram or Tiktok.
|
| You might call me a "weirdo", but this has absolutely not been
| my experience whatsoever. Friends, family and coworkers don't
| really give a shit that I don't participate in social media,
| and I haven't been treated any differently for it.
|
| Edit: And hell, generally, what's life without a bit of weird?
| The homogeneity of everyone doing the same thing together all
| the time sounds boring as hell. Here's to the weirdos!
| mvdtnz wrote:
| It just be a regional thing. I don't know a single person who
| uses Instagram.
| standardUser wrote:
| Not even musicians, artists and the like? I have a lot of
| friends who use Instagram at least partly for their
| professional lives and hobbies.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| You're describing marketing, which seems like 90% of
| posts on Instagram in 2025.
| standardUser wrote:
| Sure, it's how I learn about most of the music and art-
| related events I go to. There's not really an equivalent
| platform to get that kind of info. It would have to be a
| mishmash of email newsletters and checking blogs, and
| even then some people only promote on Instagram because
| of it's market dominance.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I'm talking about people who use it on a personal basis.
| Yes my mum sends Instagram posts to market her embroidery
| company. I don't care about marketing posts.
| kube-system wrote:
| > Have you ever heard some use the term "unalive" in person?
| It's as if they are protecting themselves from an algorithm, as
| if the conversation will be posted online.
|
| Nobody is being socially pressured to avoid the word
| "dead/died/killed" in person, that's just an illustration of
| slang perpetuating.
| standardUser wrote:
| No one thinks it's weird. You'll likely have a harder time
| making friends, flirting or networking for your career, but
| it's absolutely not weird to not use social media these days.
| netsharc wrote:
| > Imagine a friend you were on a weekend trip with. This friend
| talks with another common friend. This common friend could have
| equally well been on that weekend trip because you like him or
| her but, due to circumstances, as is life, you did not invite
| him. You probably would feel uncomfortable with that first friend
| talking about that trip as if it was the most awesome trip ever,
| that everyone had non-stop fun and now everyone who was on that
| trip are best friends for life.
|
| I feel like this is an issue one just has to grow up past.
| Walking on eggshells and deception so as not to hurt anyone's
| feelings is an annoying way to live. (I preach as a sinner).
| Related: https://www.theguardian.com/wellness/2025/apr/01/fringe-
| frie...
|
| As to Zuck's machine having your information, yeah I can imagine
| if they bothered, they could see that there's always a person or
| two in all the pictures that aren't associated with any of the
| faces of the accounts, it can also determine what the friend
| groups of this person are. Probably even determine their wealth
| by their clothes, accessories, vacation locations, house ("Oh 5
| users are gathered in a particular geolocation that is none of
| their houses [which we know about because 95% of the time a phone
| returns to a particular geolocation at night], and we can see
| from the photos that that 'unregistered user' is with them", that
| must be this user's house. Oh he lives in this neighborhood, that
| has a median income of EUR xyz. A reverse lookup of addresses we
| have because online shops upload their customer data to our
| system determines that one of the people living in that address
| is named Wouter Janleys, and from the shopping data he likes,
| amongst other things, mid-range to expensive wines.".
|
| I wonder if they can even advertise to you through your friends,
| hah, that'd be a feature improvement for a Facebook project
| manager. Start showing your friends wine ads a few weeks before
| your birthday (as well as "It's Wouter's birthday in a few weeks"
| and "Remember this photo?" which is a photo of the group with
| glasses of wine)...
| mhitza wrote:
| > I wonder if they can even advertise to you through your
| friends, hah,
|
| Probably did so through shadow profiles
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_profile
| ruined wrote:
| meta and its social networks have been a disaster for the human
| race
| chelmzy wrote:
| It's radicalizing as a twenty something who hasn't had social
| media in over a decade. Almost everything revolves around it or
| some friend Discord server. I hate it.
| alex1138 wrote:
| They needed to have proper defaults and they needed to let
| their social network grow organically and they needed to have
| an actual sane, proper, feed
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719
|
| There's a reason everyone is on Facebook (one reason is that
| everyone is on Facebook): Myspace legitimately shot themselves
| in the foot (I guess Friendster too by lack of proper site
| performance, even though it was cleaner) by having 'messy'
| pages. There's real value in being able to find the people you
| want/need to find by their real names (except, Google, maybe
| don't you know, hijack people's Youtube accounts in order so
| that they use Google+)
|
| But then Facebook introduces shifting privacy settings, tagging
| without permission, not giving people control over how
| information is displayed generally
|
| I understand it's about beating the competition and about
| growing and 'connecting the world' but some companies' DNA is
| set a certain way from the beginning
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122
| johnklos wrote:
| People who know me know that even though I'm very public (my
| handle and my email address are my name, for instance), I care
| about privacy, and therefore it's unacceptable to post abount me
| on corporate social media without asking permission, just as they
| also know to not name or tag me.
|
| People who post without asking don't know me well enough to name
| or tag me, so I don't care.
|
| If someone posted and named / tagged me without asking, I'd have
| a serious conversation with them about it.
|
| We need to stop acting like others' ignorance gives them an
| excuse to do things we don't want. "But everyone does it" is
| bull, and we're doing people a disservice when we let things
| slide because of that.
| mjevans wrote:
| Should it be allowed / legal to 'tag' people that are not part of
| a service?
|
| I might agree that 'celebrities' and leaders of larger
| organizations are 'public figures' and thus if there's a
| reasonable public interest it should be allowed to tag them,
| probably with a publishing delay for security.
|
| However individuals? Random citizens who aren't part of a
| platform and cannot manage their data? IMO the default should be
| deny data collection and do not profile.
| simiones wrote:
| I don't think the problem raised in the article is limited to
| tagging. Friend A can recognize me in a picture from friend B
| regardless of whether I'm tagged there or not.
|
| Then again, this is a pretty obscure problem, or more of a
| "problem".
| abirch wrote:
| Something that is scary is Clearview AI, etc. Then you don't
| need a person to recognize you, AI can do it. Add in Meta
| Rayban and it'll be harder and harder to maintain any shred
| of privacy.
| mrweasel wrote:
| What happens if you don't have an Instagram account, write to
| them and demand that they take down images of you, or provide
| you with all the images you appear in? Some level of this seems
| to be provided for by the GDPR and the EUs right to be
| forgotten.
| bobismyuncle wrote:
| Tagging will be redundant pretty soon with facial
| recognition...
| steveBK123 wrote:
| One of my "its probably time to quit IG" moments prior to
| quitting 3 years involved being on a condo board.
|
| A resident sent a petition asking for a variance from the bylaws,
| and part of the pitch was "well I saw XYZ on your IG so I thought
| you'd approve of this".
|
| Uhh thanks, rejected.. blocked on IG, quit IG, bye.
| timcobb wrote:
| This reminded me of the time ~10 years ago I was at an event
| featuring Richard Stallman, and he started by say that no one was
| allowed to post photos of him on FB. This was to a room of
| hundreds of people, mostly hackers. I thought, "damn, if there's
| an uphill battle somewhere, this guy will find it!"
| lostmsu wrote:
| In US, if that was a private event, his request is legally
| binding.
| bobismyuncle wrote:
| How would this work in practice if it was litigated? Wouldn't
| you need proof that this was expressly communicated to the
| specific individual that violated and that they did so
| knowingly? Seems like it probably isn't enforceable...
| lostmsu wrote:
| In this case I think it might be, because if the event was
| recorded presumably so was the request to not share.
| paxys wrote:
| Unless you agreed to the terms before buying your ticket, no,
| it isn't legally binding.
| lvass wrote:
| What if entering that room was free as in beer?
| kube-system wrote:
| RMS prefers his events to be open to the public
| lostmsu wrote:
| I may have been wrong in that RMS does not have that power,
| but the property owner does. Not sure if this is a
| universal rule or not.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| I think the only legal recourse the property owner has is
| to kick you out.
| malfist wrote:
| Unless they signed NDAs to get into the room with him, it's
| not. You're welcome to share the legal code, or a court case
| that proves me wrong though.
| immibis wrote:
| According to what law?
| delusional wrote:
| Knowing Richard Stallman he didn't ask for you not to upload
| them to Facebook but rather "Disgracebook", "FaceBurgler" or
| something like that.
| procaryote wrote:
| You allowed to have boundaries even if there's a few assholes
| who won't respect them
| accrual wrote:
| In this example RMS made a _request_ to the audience. A
| boundary would be something like "if you post photos of me
| to Facebook, you won't be invited to my conferences" or "if
| you do X, I won't interact with you". Might be difficult to
| enforce, but that's on the person making the boundary.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| That's the defining feature of a boundary: you don't
| actually tell people what to do. You just tell them what
| you'll do. "Don't talk to me like that" is an ask, "Talk to
| me like that again and I'll leave" is a boundary.
| II2II wrote:
| On the flip side: if I were to attend an event featuring
| Richard Stallman, I would rather it have a no-photos policy. I
| am interested in many of his ideas, but I have no desire to be
| associated with his ideas in their entirety or any public
| figure. Unfortunately, too many people believe that A implies
| B.
|
| I also _hate_ drama, and would much rather lead a quiet life as
| a person no one likes than an interesting life who some people
| dislike.
| timcobb wrote:
| People will dislike you arbitrarily anyway. Can't get around
| that it seems in my experience. There aren't many of these
| guys out there
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sharp_(politician),
| and I bet plenty of people hated this guy too. But hey! To
| each their own!!
| mvdtnz wrote:
| He wants to hang out with friends, but he wants his friends to
| never speak of it with their other friends?
| zombitack wrote:
| After being friends with public people, I got in the habit of
| asking people in pictures before I post, regardless of if they're
| on Instagram or not. And I NEVER post kid pictures. I find these
| rules should be obvious to most people. I'll even ask my wife
| first, who is always just about to post the same set of pictures
| I am. It's the decent thing to do.
| noman-land wrote:
| How often do you get a no?
| hoherd wrote:
| I take personal pride in how many of my friends have online
| avatars that are candid portraits that I took of them while
| we were out doing whatever, and I have had numerous people
| contact me and ask me to remove all of their photos. In the
| past sometimes it was "replace my name in the tags with a
| pseudonym" but now it's "remove them all." This all happened
| before AI took over, so you can imagine how relieved many of
| those people are in the age of deepfakes. Candid portraits
| are my favorite kind of photo to take, but sadly in the
| modern age, I've chosen to take down almost all of my
| portraits. I still have a self-hosted photo sharing software
| set up that I personally use to look through my collection
| and can share past memories with people, including lots of
| portraits I would have previously posted online, but I think
| most people and I have our guard up against AI crawlers. AI
| crawlers have made the web much more hostile than it was in
| the past.
| elric wrote:
| Not the original commenter, but my friends are aware of my
| picture preferences (as in: get that camera out of my face).
| I always say "no", and most people I know are fine with that.
|
| There are (or so I've been informed) some pictures of me on
| Facebook and Instagram. I don't have an account on either
| website so I can't see those pictures or even request to have
| them removed. Those were posted by the kind of older
| relatives who are impossible to educate on anything
| technology- (or consent-) related, and occasionally by
| friends-of-friends who snapped a pic while I was unawares.
|
| Whenever I take a picture of anyone, I always ask first, and
| I never post them anywhere public. Feels like common decency
| to me, but there is obviously no such thing as universal
| common decency, so YMMV.
| panstromek wrote:
| A think this is partly why a lot of this activity moved into
| private group chats, where it's more naturally segregated by
| social circles. Most people around me are pretty active on social
| media but vast majority of that activity is not in the public
| profile.
| imaginationra wrote:
| A nothing post from a blog with a single post.
|
| Its marketing and its boring.
| cess11 wrote:
| I expect people to ask me before they publish documentation of
| where I've been and what I did on services like Instagram, and I
| usually decline the offer. Is this considered unreasonable
| elsewhere?
| wormius wrote:
| This sounds like it should be an AITA post on reddit based on the
| comments in this thread.
| strathmeyer wrote:
| Does anyone want to socialize but not have to socialize? I know I
| sure do / don't.
| nalekberov wrote:
| I'm visiting Instagram lately only to see funny reels sent from
| my friends. My Instagram timeline is consisting of 90%
| influencers and life coaches, who is going to tell me my life
| sucks because I don't do what they have to tell me to do and 10%
| my friends.
| Funes- wrote:
| This bothered me a lot in the past. I want to be in full control
| of any information that is on the Internet concerning myself.
| Some of the people I know will add an appeasing comment before
| taking a picture: "don't worry, I won't upload it anywhere!", but
| most people will just post it willy-nilly all the same.
|
| By the way, during last Monday's blackout in Spain, I had a sense
| of this kind of burden being lifted from the atmosphere... the
| idea of nobody having the ability to record and publish anything
| anymore (for the duration of the blackout, at least), was quite
| interesting... relieving, even.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Approaching zero of my friends are on Meta any more. Most have
| inactive accounts; a few have canceled outright. Those that are
| "active" are mostly limited to wishing each other happy birthday.
|
| Afaic, Meta pretty much killed their platforms by pumping rage-
| bait clicks instead of social content.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-05 23:01 UTC)