Instagram tells me to rebuild, or the ability to instantly republish someone else's feed post as a retweet, "it's not happening," it's not being compiled and is not being tested. And that's good news for all Instagram users. The denial comes after he initially issued a "no comment" to Casey Newton of The Verge, who posted that he had seen screenshots of a native Instagram remix sent by a source.
Relocation would be a fundamental change in how Instagram works, not necessarily in terms of functionality, but in terms of the accepted norms of what and how to publish. You can always screenshot, quote the original creator and post. But Instagram always has to share your window with the world: what you have lived and seen. The re-programming would legitimize suddenly assuming the eyes of another person.
And the result would be that users could not trust that when they follow someone, that's the vision that would appear in their feed. Instagram would feel much more random and unpredictable. And it would look more like his older brother Facebook whose News Feed has declined in popularity. Susceptible to viral blackmail shit, vulnerable to disinformation campaigns abroad and, worst of all, impersonal.
Newton's report suggested that Instagram repossessions would appear below the profile picture of the original participant, and that the re-recordings could be re-recorded once again, showing a stack of both profile thumbnails of those who previously shared it. That would at least prevent massive repost chains turning the poles into power pumps that consume everything.
Re-programming could certainly expand what appears in your feed, which some might consider more interesting. It could stimulate growth by creating a much simpler way for users to share the feed, especially if they do not live a glamorous life. I can see a case that this is a characteristic only for companies, which are already impersonal and act as curators. And the Instagram algorithm could hide the less attractive programs.
These benefits explain why Instagram has considered internally the creation of remarketing programs for years. CEO Kevin Systrom told Wired last year: "We discussed a lot about what is shared again … But really that decision is about keeping your feed focused on the people you meet instead of people you know finding other things for you to see, and I think that's more a testament to our focus on authenticity. "
Look, right now, Instagram profiles are consistent. You can get an idea of what someone is posting and make an informed decision about whether to follow them at a quick glance at your grid. What they share reflects on them, so they are cautious and deliberate. Everyone is putting on a "Like" show, so it may not be entirely "authentic", but at least the content is personal. When reprogramming, it would be impossible to say what someone will publish next, and put their food at the mercy of their impulses without the required responsibility. If you reprogram something lame, ugly or annoying, the original author is the culprit.
Instagram already have a release valve for the demand to reprogram in the form of capacity to convert people's public food publications into Stickers that you can paste into your Story. Launched in May, you can add your comments, complementing with submerging the author. There, the regrams are ephemeral, and your followers have to remove them from their Stories tray instead of having them force feed them through the feed. In fact, you can share the content of others, but not turn it into a central facet of Instagram or emblem of your identity. And if you just want to make sure that some friends see something amazing that you've discovered, you can send information messages to people as direct messages.
Making it much easier to re-post to feed instead of sharing something original could turn Instagram into an eco-camera It would make Instagram even more popular, with users competing for viral distribution and the ability to connect your SoundCloud mixtapes like on Twitter. Personal self-expression would be further overshadowed by the people who play in the peanut gallery. Companies can be lazy instead of finding their own style. If you want to discover something new and unexpected, there is a whole Exploration page full.
Newton is a great reporter, and I suspect that the screenshots he saw were real, but I think Instagram should have given him the right negative denial. far. My guess is that he did not want to comment on his standard because if he always denies rumors and inaccurate speculation, that means that journalists can assume they are right when he says & # 39; no comments. & # 39;
But once Newton published his report, a violent reaction quickly emerged about how reprogramming could ruin Instagram. Instead of leaving users worried, confused and constantly asking when the feature would be launched and how it would work, the company decided to issue firm denials after the fact. It was worth moving away from his public relations strategy book. Maybe he had already decided to eliminate his prototype of re-programming, maybe the screenshots were just an early demo that was never seriously thought, or maybe he had not finalized that decision to abort until the audience weighed on the function yesterday. .
In any case, the introduction of the programming would run the risk of an unforced error. The elementary change of the chronological feeding to the algorithmic, although criticized, was fundamental so that Instagram could show the best of the massive influx of content. Instagram would finally break without that. There is no emergency correction corresponding to what is not broken when it comes to not allowing reprogramming.
Instagram is already growing like crazy. It has just reached one billion monthly users. Stories now has 400 million daily users and that feature is growing six times faster than Snapchat in general. The application is absolutely dominant in the world of photography and the sharing of short videos. Re-programming would be an unnecessary bet.