If only they could put in a system that verifies these notable accounts so they could be excluded from spam sweeps along with a nice indicator to other users that they've checked these accounts.
Probably a bad idea though.
The TOS gives Instagram the right to do this:
When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, you hereby grant to us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.
Now granted, TOS aren't always legal or enforceable, but as far as that goes this seems pretty straight forward (famous last words for a non-lawyer).
And they will all fail because they want something that can't possibly exist:
A Twitter/FB-like experience with Twitter/FB's user base, where they can say all the hateful things they want, but no one is allowed to say anything hateful back.
This is one of the many reasons they all seem to fail.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by thecleric.
The one exception
The reason comment section. Hive of scum and villainy.
If only we had a solution
If only they could put in a system that verifies these notable accounts so they could be excluded from spam sweeps along with a nice indicator to other users that they've checked these accounts. Probably a bad idea though.
Free as in beer or free as in speech?
Musk: Neither.
One of the worst parts
Slight correction
The url for the original video is incorrect. It should be https://deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-its-news-anc-1824233490 As well, the original author was Timothy Burke, not Thomas.
Business model
Suppose you were an idiot
Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.
$69 a year
I'm wondering why all of this isn't rendered moot by Instagram's TOS
The TOS gives Instagram the right to do this: When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, you hereby grant to us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems. Now granted, TOS aren't always legal or enforceable, but as far as that goes this seems pretty straight forward (famous last words for a non-lawyer).
These alternatives will always fail
And they will all fail because they want something that can't possibly exist: A Twitter/FB-like experience with Twitter/FB's user base, where they can say all the hateful things they want, but no one is allowed to say anything hateful back. This is one of the many reasons they all seem to fail.