When Trump took office, since my focus had been on censorship circumvention and I had promised my research participants, some of whom had connected with me on the site, that I would delete any data in the event of a hostile government event, I permanently deleted my Facebook and Instagram.
I recently decided to give the site a second chance -- I registered for Facebook, then used that as an SSO for Instagram, and began posting my photos, geotagged, with descriptions of the set and setting they were taken in. Not in a spammy way, one every day or so.
Suddenly, one day my Facebook was disabled -- I was told my account was "inathentic" without any option for appeal. To add insult to injury, the policy they linked to on "inauthenticity" (which, since I registered using my legal name, I was not violating) didn't even exist -- I got a big fat 404 looking for how my profile could be seen in any way, shape, or form as inauthentic.
Since my art featured no humans, I never had to deal with the issues some photographers of human subjects bump up against. I was never one uncivil on the platform.
I've given up on being able to use things like Facebook Marketplace (one of the reasons I gave them a second shot, since Craigslist is a ghost of it's former self), but... the Instagram persist. I continue to get emails nudging me to return... but I can't, because the Facebook account I used for SSO has been arbitrarily banned.
I am not eligible for EU citizenship (paid a lawyer to check -- Italy has changed their nationality law to only go back two generations) so it's my understanding the GDPR is not in play despite many of these photos being taken and uploaded from within the EU during my travels.
Do I have any recourse here? I do not like the idea Meta can make money off my content while denying me the use of their platform, and wish to permanently part ways given this terrible customer service experience.
toomuchtodo•4mo ago
File DMCA takedown notices with them for your photos, you own the copyright. You can leverage US copyright to its full extent in this use case. Instagram is under no obligation to enable your participation on the platform, but you remain the owner of the content associated with the account.
https://help.instagram.com/contact/552695131608132
https://help.instagram.com/126382350847838
Please report back with outcome findings and learnings.
firefax•4mo ago
First option doesn't seem to work given I cannot log in (SSO issue in post -- I don't have a "password" to Instagram, only to make use of FB SSO).
>File DMCA takedown notices with them for your photos, you own the copyright. You can leverage US copyright to its full extent in this use case. Instagram is under no obligation to enable your participation on the platform, but you remain the owner of the content associated with the account.
Thanks, this is the kind of legal hack I was looking for.
I filled out a DMCA form linking to every photo on the account and stated that since they won't let me log into said account, I am revoking consent for use of all images.
I will post back here when I hear back.
At the "meta" level (no pun intended), I worry for Facebook's stock price if returning users are arbitrarily denied the ability to manage their public facing digital identity.
We grow and change over time -- edit our biographies, our avatars, which art is most prominent. To claim someone is so "inauthentic" they must be banned from the platform but to continue hosting their content seems absurd. I've mostly heard of such policies being directed at things like election disinformation or COVID skepticism, not... nightshots of the Tokyo skyline. And if I was "inauthentic", should my content be wiped so my disinformation can't be spread further?
It hurts my feelings, on a personal level, having joined as a college freshman to return to feelings of arbitrary punishment I thought we leave behind in K12, especially given that I've been nothing but kind on the platform in the past.
toomuchtodo•4mo ago
> "As you know people, as you learn about things, you realize that these generalizations we have are, virtually to a generalization, false. Well, except for this one, as it turns out. What you think of Oracle, is even truer than you think it is. There has been no entity in human history with less complexity or nuance to it than Oracle. And I gotta say, as someone who has seen that complexity for my entire life, it's very hard to get used to that idea. It's like, 'surely this is more complicated!' but it's like: Wow, this is really simple! This company is very straightforward, in its defense. This company is about one man, his alter-ego, and what he wants to inflict upon humanity -- that's it! ...Ship mediocrity, inflict misery, lie our asses off, screw our customers, and make a whole shitload of money. Yeah... you talk to Oracle, it's like, 'no, we don't fucking make dreams happen -- we make money!' ...You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle." - Bryan Cantril
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
firefax•4mo ago
Anyways, it's with their legal dept now so I'll try to put the blue site out of my mind and enjoy better venues like the orange site :-)