Hacker News Reader

Comment by personlurking | Hacker News Reader

Top reply:

>What do you think of Facebook-owned products? IG started out like a mobile Flickr in the early days, a place for personal creativity and documentation, but now has become an ad-filled place to peacock, gather likes, and promote. I wonder about the psychological impact on people.

His response:

>Plenty of studies have confirmed that Instagram is having a terrible effect on the psychology of many people. Also, Instagram gave us The Influencer. That's gotta be up there in the top 10 of worst gifts to the world.

TIL that apparently IG used to be a mobile Flickr. But even if that line of thought advanced, would it not have still turned into "an ad-filled place to peacock, gather likes, and promote" personal creativity and documentation?

View on HN

I somewhat disagree with his assessment of influencers. Can they be annoying? Yes. Are they providing real value for companies to be able to connect with tribes of people? Yes. The influencer has single handedly upended the advertisement industry and taken money away from traditional media is a big way. I think it's given more jobs to people who don't work on Madison Avenue and maybe don't have technical skills, but can connect with a large audience of people.

I'm guessing most people who don't like influencers would rather have newspapers than provide more value to companies and create an industry for people whose main talent is popularity.

And only the most popular stories are noticed. The backstories for many of these people aren't often told:

https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/my-quest-for-instagram-stardom...

I don't understand what value they really provide to the public. They almost exist to inspire envy.

I disagree but not downvoting because I think you raise a valid point and it's worth discussing. To me, the reason it's more than just "annoying" is that it encourages one-dimensional, superficial idols that will end up having an outsized impact on shaping a generation's values and notions of success. This is essentially an extension of celebrity worship, which existed long before Instagram. The difference is that Instagram is basically "democratizing" celebrity, lowering the barrier to entry and yielding an explosion of these types of icons, while simultaneously delivering them in a remarkably efficient manner that acts as a lever for reach and impact.

I used to use it to put 1:1 crops up of the photos I took because it simply seemed like a pleasant little place to leave my memories.

I ended up deleting most of my social media accounts this year, starting with Instagram, the moment I noticed that I keep getting drawn in by a rush of excitement after I uploaded each photo and kept checking for notifications.

A lot of these social media sites require high levels of awareness and self-control to use responsibly, in my opinion. I myself struggle with that.

It is possible to be ad-filled without the peacocking or like gathering or promoting. The addition and promotion of social features is a choice that aligns with various KPIs but has huge negative externalities

I see influencers as a net negative for society but in terms of getting people to actually engage with advertised products, it's pretty brilliant. Before Instagram, a brand would put out ads with a rotating cast of "characters" (i.e. models, actors) that got people to think "I want to be more like that person and buying this will help", which worked, but lacked a real connection with the "characters". Instagram inverted that model and allows you to follow the characters, become more connected, interact with them, and follow their "tastes". The legacy equivalent would be something like sponsorships for pro athletes, but they've expanded it into domains like fashion, cookware, etc. while adding the interactive component.

Sorta, it had filters you could add to pictures iirc was the biggest thing going for IG. I can't recall if those came from the getgo or after the fact it looked like Flickr.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com