New Instagram 'rule' coming

soon? Don't be fooled

John Herrman, The New York Times
Posted at Aug 22 2019 07:47 AM

Share

Save
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
If you’re on Instagram, then you’ve probably heard the news about Instagram. “Don’t forget
tomorrow starts the new Instagram rule where they can use your photos,” the blurry image-text reads.
“Don’t forget Deadline today!!! It can be used in court cases in litigation against you.” Luckily, “it”
can be stopped, in accordance with specific laws, by a “simple copy and paste.”

If a legally binding social media repost sounds obviously bogus to you, then you are not Julia
Roberts, Taraji P. Henson, Judd Apatow, Usher, Nancy Meyers, Retta, Julianne Moore, Tina
Knowles Lawson or Rick Perry, the US secretary of energy. Nor are you any of the myriad other
public figures, influencers and nonprofessional Instagram users who shared their own copies of the
post, sounding the alarm far and wide in the Facebook-owned app.
The meme quickly went from alarmist to absurdist, as users announced their basic web literacy
through humor. The new “rule,” of course, does not exist. The “tomorrow” of the post is eternal. Its
legal claims don’t make sense. Much of the language isn’t coherent enough to be specifically
disputable.

The many clues about its credibility are not subtle. “Instagram,” hastily slapped over some other
word from some previous iteration of this false alarm, gets larger with each subsequent appearance,
creating an unsettling visual crescendo before the closer: “Instagram DOES NOT HAVE MY
PERMISSION TO SHARE PHOTOS OR MESSAGES.”

The pasted-over name is almost certainly “Facebook,” where versions of this post seem to have
originated and spread to such an extent that Snopes felt the need to address them in 2012. Those
messages were part of a long traditional of self-referential rumors that spread around newsgroups,
through email and on practically any service that allows people to congregate or communicate online.
Email chain letters, having no single email provider to refer to, might have suggested nefarious
email-related schemes by the government, or by an all-powerful Bill Gates. Facebook, which is more
centralized and has a single, well-known boss, is the clearest heir to the email chain letter tradition,
and has provided rich material for the form.

THE ZUCK MAN HIMSELF

In 2006, it was “Facebook is recently becoming very overpopulated” and “those who do not send this
message within 2 weeks” will be “deleted without hesitation to create more space.” This was a
variation on email spam from years before; in 2014, a similar message about Instagram went viral
too. In 2009: “From Saturday morning facebook will become chargeable. If you have at least 10
contacts send them this message.” That same year: “If you don’t know, as of today, Facebook will
automatically index all your info on Google, which allows everyone to view it.”

Another message circulated just last year: “Hey everyone, Zuck here with a huge announcement. So
after much consideration … I, the Zuck man himself, will be deleting Facebook.” These formats have
been reanimated for other Facebook-owned products. WhatsApp’s help page for “Hoax messages” is
almost entirely focused on messaging purporting to be from, or affiliated with, the company itself.

Each of these messages was — pick your word — a hoax, spam, fake, wrong. Many were debunked,
sometimes by email providers or social media companies themselves, but more often by news outlets
or fact-checking sites. In the case of this week’s viral Instagram warning, Adam Mosseri, the head of
Instagram, addressed the posts. “Heads up!” he wrote in an Instagram Story that linked to a Women’s
Wear Daily article. “If you’re seeing a meme claiming Instagram is changing its rules tomorrow, it’s
not true — swipe up to learn more.”

On Facebook, bad information often rises from obscurity. The spread of a single viral message on
Instagram appears to be more of a top-down process, finding audiences in the manner of a product or
trend promoted by influencers. On Facebook, the viral machinery is visible, intended to show you not
just how many people have shared something, but where it came from and what people think about it.
On Instagram, there is no one-tap way to repost content, so a repost takes a bit of work — screenshot,
manual credit, re-caption — and is therefore understood as an endorsement, not unlike a choice to
wear a piece of clothing or drink a particular drink.

THE RECITATION OF THE LEGALISTIC INCANTATIONS

The Recitation of the Legalistic Incantations

This sort of false information — low-stakes and extremely popular — deserves debunking wherever
it appears. But revisiting the “copypasta” panics of the past, and the confident, defiant corrections
they inspired, makes for strange reading. Consider the 2009 Facebook post about sharing data with
Google. This did not happen. Facebook did, however, remake its service as an “application
platform,” providing a simple way for third parties to build apps within Facebook, and for users to
provide profile information to those apps, instantly. That went badly. The platform also introduced its
own search engine, Graph Search, which allowed users to search profiles and posts that had been
made public by their creators — content that, while technically available already, was suddenly much
easier to find. Facebook was not about to start charging users in 2009, as a copy-paste meme
suggested. In 2018, however, Sheryl Sandberg entertained the possibility on TV, and Mark
Zuckerberg alluded to it in a Senate hearing.

The Instagram panic of 2019 earned a swift denial from the company — “There’s no truth to this
post,” a spokesperson told reporters — and dozens of confident debunking stories. These, too, can
make for strange reading. “How did this ridiculous Instagram privacy hoax from 2012 fool so many
stars?” asks a headline on Mashable. It’s a fair question, answered not just by the article, but by a
related video promoted right below it: “WATCH: Instagram users’ location data, stories were tracked
by marketing company.” Or by the stories in the site’s various sidebars and content modules that
surround the story: “Facebook’s ‘clear history’ tool doesn’t actually ‘clear’ anything,” or “Instagram
can’t stop flood of grisly photos from teen’s murder so users step up,” or, published five days ago,
“Instagram will let users report ‘false information.’”

It is fair but maybe not adequate to call posts like these “hoaxes,” or to prosecute them as a form of
mis- or disinformation. The jokester never comes forward. If they’re spam, they’re missing a
spammer to cash in. What are they? Are they a bit like chants, or spells, meant to ward off the spirit
of Zuck? Rearranged, the lines sound like bad but earnest poetry:

Everything you’ve ever posted

becomes public from today

Don’t forget tomorrow starts

The new Instagram rule

In this spirit, the part of the post that first reads as most ridiculous could be the one worth taking
seriously. The text suggests that all of the things that Instagram will allegedly do to you “tomorrow”
can be stopped by pasting a chunk of text, citing some laws and telling the company what’s what.
“With this statement, I give notice.”

Where might we have heard this tone and language before? From Instagram itself, in, for example,
the arbitration notice at the top of its terms of use, posted in bold and all caps: “YOU AGREE THAT
DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND US WILL BE RESOLVED BY BINDING, INDIVIDUAL
ARBITRATION.”

Or a bit further down the page: “We do not claim ownership of your content, but you grant us a
license to use it.”
 When you “share, post or upload content” to the 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)

“You can end this license anytime by deleting your content or account.” (The next sentence starts
with “however.”)

It’s boilerplate. Another way to put that: All the big social apps explain themselves to us this way.
The same services we use to spread false information depend on web of rules that are so rarely read,
and a set of “agreements” that are so cartoonishly lopsided, they may as well be made up. Online, we
live in a world defined and ruled by what feel like magic words. What else are we supposed to post
about?

c.2019 The New York Times Company

Share

Save
Facebook
Share on Twitter
LinkedIn

Read More: hoax Instagram viral social media