
Instagram Stories hits 200M users, surpassing Snapchat - misiti3780
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/13/instagram-stories-bigger-than-snapchat/
======
trevor-e
I think this is well deserved. Instagram Story's experience to me is way nicer
and more complete since it integrates perfectly with their core photo sharing
product. After I'm done viewing snaps I have on Snapchat, what else is there
left to do? With Instagram, I can look at my photo feed and go to people's
profiles, and all of the back-navigation works perfectly. Meanwhile,
Snapchat's app is slow, buggy, and doesn't even take nice pictures. Other than
the more gimmicky features, such as face filters which will inevitably come to
Instagram, the product feels way behind.

~~~
hammock
Instagram is oriented towards consumption; when you open it, it takes you to
your feed, and as you mention after posting or viewing stories it makes it
easy to consume more.

Snapchat is oriented towards creation. When you open it, it starts on the
camera.

~~~
colept
There's more to consumption and creation. Snapchat is ephemeral and fun - so
you're somewhere and thinking "this would be a great snap" so it makes sense
to open to the camera.

Instagram is so much more self-regulated and bound in crafting identity.
You're right in that it's much more focused on consuming since the barrier to
posting is much higher than snapping.

~~~
QML
I'd agree with you but in the past year there's been a trend of making fake
Instagram accounts (finsta's).

------
niftich
Instagram is a social network where the best effect occurs when your account
is public: you get social validation from a large audience liking your content
on its merits, the sum of all your content forms a persistent feed, and your
followers form a closer inner core with whom the nature of interaction is more
immediate. This tends to be most rewarding for people who can attract a large
number of likes; this number of likes is displayed to anyone who can see the
content.

Snapchat is the inverse, where the content is aimed at one's followers, but
one can submit notable content to be featured in the company-curated Discover
section (about major events, for example). There is no public aggregation,
there is no public display of likes.

The two platforms are still differentiated by their design philosophies, and
in North America there is significant overlap in the userbase.

The danger, of course, is that once Instagram has cloned enough of Snapchat's
functionality, the same users won't need to switch to Snapchat anymore to get
the close-knit experience. Similarly, Snapchat may feel pressured to up its
parity with Instagram in turn, by adding public features that are very
different from its current model. In either case, the networks will have
iterated themselves into equivalence [1], making the exact provider irrelevant
and making pure network effects be the the deciding factor more often that not
-- which gives an advantage to larger players.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168804](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168804)

------
cocktailpeanuts
I'm sure most people would disagree but Snapchat was done the moment they
released stories.

I say this despite the fact that stories was what really brought stratospheric
growth to snapchat, because i'm taking into account opportunity cost.

They could have focused on making their core (1-1 messaging) better but they
decided to become a broadcast media company, starting with stories and then
those brand videos.

This has always been risky. Even at its peak when you look at what was
happening on Snapchat stories, a lot of these microcelebrities on snapchat
would use stories as a way to get more likes or follows on their instagram.
They say stuff like "Hey i just posted a new photo on instagram, please like
it!" etc. This was convenient for them because these needy behaviors go away
on snapchat stories.

The moment snapchat decided to become 1:many, they became a serious threat to
Facebook in pretty obvious ways, so it was no brainer that Facebook jumped to
do something about it. And at the same time, you can't compete with Facebook
on 1:many broadcast.

They should have focused on 1:1 and fought on their own turf. Sure it would
have been harder to figure out the viral growth, but it was already doing well
so I'm sure they could have figured out some way without jumping into
Facebook's playground.

~~~
apozem
I respectfully disagree with almost every part of your post.

1\. Snapchat is not done. Millions of active users in advertiser-desired
demographics is not done. Instagram has blunted its growth, but Snapchat is
still alive and well.

2\. Snapchat is a social platform, not a broadcast media company. There is a
difference- they're not making their own content.

3\. Snapchat was always a threat to Facebook, regardless of whether it was 1:1
or 1:many messaging. Snapchat competes for finite resources: digital ad
dollars and user attention by way of socialization. This is how Facebook's
business works as well, making them inherent competitors. If you're snapping a
selfie to a friend then you're not seeing ads in the Facebook app.

You may be right about Snapchat not being able to compete against Facebook in
the long run. Facebook certainly demonstrated the power of owning the largest
social network when they cloned Stories. They can copy good ideas and roll
them out to billions of users instantly. Maybe Snapchat can compete with that,
maybe not.

4\. Exactly what Snapchat's turf consists of is an open question I don't think
any of us know the answer to. You seem to think its turf is 1:1 messaging, but
Spiegel thinks it's being a camera company. After seeing Spectacles, god only
knows where they'll go next. Besides, why stay in one bit of "turf" when you
can expand?

[https://stratechery.com/2016/snapchats-
ladder/](https://stratechery.com/2016/snapchats-ladder/)

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
> 1\. Snapchat is not done

I will agree with you on this one. Maybe I was too aggressive in my
expression. But the point I was making was they made a mistake by deciding to
fight on Facebook's turf.

> 2\. Snapchat is a social platform, not a broadcast media company. There is a
> difference- they're not making their own content.

Maybe you haven't used Snapchat recently? Just check out the "discover"
feature. Also you're using the term "broadcast" differently than how I'm using
it.

> but Spiegel thinks it's being a camera company.

I respectfully want to say you're believing too much of what PR people tell
you. "Camera company" doesn't suddenly make the company more compelling. It
only becomes compelling when they have a solid business model to support that
vision. Spectacles is nothing more than an SoCal phenomenon. Good job for
pulling off that scarcity marketing but that doesn't change the fact that most
people don't want to walk around wearing a douchy pair of sunglasses everyday.

Overall I think you're making arguments about unimportant details. My main
point was Snapchat should have focused on scaling their core experience that
was truly unique. Instead they stepped into a territory where it can be
replicated by anyone else. I'm not just talking about Facebook. Just look
around the world and you'll see snapchat clones popping up (or soon will).
Snapchat should have owned that entire global market.

------
nostrademons
Would be interesting to see the demographics on those users. My understanding
is that if you're under 25, you use SnapChat, and if you're over 25, you can't
figure out how the hell to use SnapChat. Instagram Stories may've exploded
into the demographic that doesn't use SnapChat. This is possibly supported by
the comments here about Instagram's UI being a lot nicer; most of us on HN are
in the demographic above SnapChat users.

If this is the case, it's not as damning for SnapChat as it seems, at least
until some younger, hotter social app bumps them off the pedestal in a few
years. Young users get older, but older users don't get any younger. My
understanding is that SnapChat's inscrutable UI is deliberate: they want you
to have to be shown how to use SnapChat by someone already on it, to avoid the
"My grandmother's on Facebook, how uncool is that?" problem.

~~~
component
> My understanding is that SnapChat's inscrutable UI is deliberate: they want
> you to have to be shown how to use SnapChat by someone already on it, to
> avoid the "My grandmother's on Facebook, how uncool is that?" problem.

Couldn't agree more

It's evident by most of the comments here

Instagram / Facebook / WhatsApp will not get that < 25 demography

I doubt Instagram counts this as _success_. They didn't get any _new_ users -
that was the main goal when mimicking Snapchat

~~~
draw_down
Older people have all the money (in America at least) so Instagram may be ok
with that.

~~~
nostrademons
Usually brand advertising tries to skew young (even towards children, if the
FTC lets them get away with it) because brand preferences are usually set in
the teens and early 20s and then people purchase things on autopilot.

This may be why SnapChat has targeted brand advertisers rather than the more
targeted advertisements that Facebook/Google go after.

------
majani
The biggest question about Facebook has been whether they can stay relevant in
the face of an onslaught of cooler apps in the future. The biggest test of
this so far was Snapchat and they've managed to ethically out compete them
with flying colors. Credit where credit is due, kudos to Facebook and the
doubts about future relevance should be put to bed now.

~~~
damnfinecoffee
meh, making what is essentially a complete clone of snapchat within Instagram
hardly seems like "ethically out-competing them" in my opinion. They took the
ideas directly from Snapchat and just stuck them in an app that already has a
huge sticky userbase, relying on the convenience factor to get people to use
it.

Totally made up and arbitrary example but it would be like if Starbucks
started serving some widely popular menu item based on a recipe from a
competing chain. They already have a huge loyal customer base that's coming
into their stores all the time, so it's more convenient for these people to
get this new item at Starbucks since they're going there anyway, but Starbucks
didn't come up with the idea or recipe, they just saw that it was popular
elsewhere and knew they could leverage the convenience factor to get people to
buy it from their stores (which people were already coming to) instead of
going to a second store for it. That's not really ethical competition.

~~~
dkrich
Why not? At the risk of sounding like a hand-wringing capitalist, at the end
of the day, isn't the purpose of a business to charge money in exchange for
providing a good or service that is useful to a customer? If Starbucks can
greater serve the needs of their customers by providing a new item (regardless
of where they got the idea from), then why shouldn't they? Some might argue
that they are actually doing their customers a disservice by not providing it
and making them go elsewhere.

~~~
theseatoms
Except Facebook doesn't charge money. I wish they would.

~~~
dkrich
Neither does Snapchat, but I don't see how that changes the argument anyway.
If Facebook greater serves its users needs, then that brings in more users who
spend more time on its network of apps which greater serves its paying
customers (advertisers).

------
plorg
On the other hand, Facebook's thirsty attempt at pushing the same feature in
all of their apps is both fragmented and ham-handed. It seems to have landed
with a thud - I have seen exactly one contact post a Story in either the
Facebook or Messenger apps. They've now started posting greyed-out profile
pictures of frequent contacts to make the space seem popular, seemingly
encouraging the user to use the feature to contact those people. It seems sad,
frankly.

~~~
superquest
+1 on greyed out icons of frequent contacts. Cringed and closed app a few
times due to this.

------
kermire
Instagram stories are more accessible than Snapchat stories. Snapchat has one
of the most bizarre UIs I've ever seen in my life. I was so confused when I
opened it the first time. Main screen defaults to the camera instead of
showing the stories. That's probably because it's a camera app more than a
social media one. Previously there were only icons, now there's a bit of text
to describe things. That's good but it's just not a very interesting product
anymore.

~~~
devdas
Or maybe you are just not the target audience for the app.

------
lucideer
I wonder how much of this is Instagram stealing Snapchat's userbase and how
much is it simply converting its existing userbase over to using Snapchat's
new innovative features.

If Instagram has more users than Snapchat, saying "Instagram's Snapchat
feature has more users than Snapchat" isn't really as significant as it
sounds, and doesn't _necessarily_ represent any erosion of their userbase or
threaten their growth.

Of course their userbases are not mutually exclusive, but I do get the
impression there's a rough demographic separation.

~~~
mattnewton
It does call into question the value of Snapchat if competitors can execute
seemingly just as well on the platform. Owning Facebook seems like a cheaper
and safer bet than Snap.

------
thinbeige
Why I still prefer Snapchat:

1\. After launching the app I am right in the take-a-picture mode. With
Instagram I need one or two touches.

2\. Different DNA, different circles

3\. Pics to one or several people is way better and faster than on Instagram.

Only because they share the stories features doesn't mean they are
interchangeable. They are still different products.

Even if Instagram has more MAUs on the stories feature Instagram's DNA gets
dilluted with the integration of the story feature. Random, inflationary and
non-glossy media wasn't part of Instagrams previous shiny DNA and experience.

~~~
fernandotakai
> 1\. After launching the app I am right in the take-a-picture mode. With
> Instagram I need one or two touches.

i prefer taking pictures with the usual camera app on my phone (double table
the home button -> done) and then post on stories/instagram.

that way i have the pic itself full size + other people can see it.

------
Axsuul
I believe both platforms will thrive because they target different audiences.
Most people seem to prefer Instagram for their "professional" persona while
keeping Snapchat for their "real" self. This is credit to Snapchat's "silly
and fun" interface and brand in comparison to Instagram's more minimalistic
one. Furthermore, Instagram will always have some pull due to its network
effects.

------
crazypyro
As a young 20 something, Snapchat stories is still dominant among my social
circle and other social circles I encounter. No one I know uses Instagram
stories heavily. I even have a few friends with Spectacles.

Snapchat's app is absolutely shit on anything except an iPhone though and even
casual users I know mention this.

------
vhost-
I decided to download snapchat and try it a couple months ago to see what all
the fuss was about. I might be a black sheep here, but it was really
confusing. I had no idea how to use it. And I've been building software for 15
years too.

I can completely understand Instagram, so I was happy they added stories. It's
really easy to use and the functionality seems intuitive.

~~~
pdelbarba
There's an argument that the success of Snapchat was in part because of it's
confusing interface. By adding a barrier to entry that younger generations
were willing to accept but older ones might not, it kept the older generations
(parents) off and kept the decidedly edgy platform popular with it's core,
unlike Facebook where you're socially obligated to 'friend' your parents.

------
delecti
As a user of both Instagram and Snapchat, this doesn't surprise me. The UX for
the Instagram stories functionality is pleasantly at the top of the normal UI,
but Snapchat's UX is really quite hostile, and even though I'm very familiar
with it, it continue to be unpleasant to use.

Add in that Instagram's typical user base is much more broad (Snapchat tends
to be most popular with young tweens, whereas Instagram's user base is just
about everybody), and you have one actively hostile interface in an already
small market against a much more friendly interface in an almost unrestricted
market.

------
radiusvector
As impressive as it may sound, this is pretty shocking for the state of the
industry.

An innovative, new upshot getting sucked up/ blatantly ripped off by an
established player with more muscle, money (and in this case - users) to throw
at the problem is not a great incentive for entrepreneurs.

Consolidation at this level resembles communism more closely than the kind of
free market innovation we should be seeing.

[http://avc.com/2017/02/the-end-of-the-level-playing-
field/](http://avc.com/2017/02/the-end-of-the-level-playing-field/)

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Totally in agreement here. I think this is actually a much bigger deal than
anyone imagines.

It shows that even if you create a HUGE new thing, you're probably going to
get killed by the big ones. There is no competing anymore - you either
assimilate through acquisition or get squeezed to death on the back end
because the incumbents have the cash, data and talent.

So what the hell is venture supposed to do in this landscape? I'm genuinely
curious. If the goal of venture money is to build IPO level companies - not
one off acquisitions - then what is the move here?

I even remarked as such a few days ago:
[https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/851840701214208002](https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/851840701214208002)

~~~
krschultz
Re-read The Innovators Dilemma. Startups built on just having better
technology or product rarely ever work. You need to compete on an axis that
the incumbent _can 't_ compete on. The incumbent should be looking at your
startup, be aware of what you are doing, and be unable to copy it because
doing so would break their existing (profitable) business.

If you are relying on outcompeting the incumbent directly you are in for a
really tough fight.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Really the point I am making is that they have the ability to cover all axes
because the information they have about each is so deep and their tentacles
are everywhere in some form. Remember too, they don't need to brand a product
with "Google" to be dominant in it. They just need to make sure that whatever
startup is playing in the space is using a google product, be it GoLang,
Tensorflow, etc... or has investment from GV

Technology: Check

Personnel: Check

Funding: Check

Consumer Understanding: Check

Industry Knowledge: Check

------
iamdave
I'm not the target audience, clearly. I'll get notifications from Instagram
"So and so posted a story!" and I'll swipe left to clear it off my
notification screen without ever even thinking about it again. Snapchat
stories, the only ones I watch (and it's a rarity that I'll even watch them at
all) are sports updates.

So. That being said: just curious what the appeal is for others. What is it
_you_ like about stories, what about the feature-other than it ostensibly
being a video-is so engaging about these things?

~~~
cerved
It's not the video, it's about the community. You send a small video to your
friends that you make in 5s with some silly shit.

I don't see how this fits with the 'hey world, look at my perfect life' photos
of Instagram.

My guess is that it's as much a move to force people into a feed where they
are forced to interact more with ads since IG ads don't perform well as show
investors they compete with Snapchat.

I don't see an exodus of Snapchat users to Instagram.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
>> I don't see how this fits with the 'hey world, look at my perfect life'
photos of Instagram.

That's the whole point. With Instagram Stories, you can now do both. My public
feed that stick has nice curated pictures, while my Stories have goofy every-
day, even mundane stuff that will disappear in 24 hrs. It is the perfect
duality.

~~~
kneel
Snapchat really focuses on personal interaction, it's hard to grok unless you
really understand the full features of both apps and have used them quite a
bit. Streaks, friend trophies, snapscores, read receipts, the scarcity factor
of the media, these all seem like small features but they're a major appeal on
the platform.

Instagram is more public facing and has the same boasty/gaudy problems that
fb/twitter has. Instagram can replicate the features of snapchat but it's
really trying to do too much, it's cluttered and overburdened. Not to mention
the advertisements, fake personas, novelty accounts and hidden shills.

------
maxwellito
It's not completely surprising. They did an amazing job to deploy this
feature. It's directly available (perfect to attract new users) and it works
like a charm. I used Snapchat and I loved it, but UX is a pain. It's
incredibly heavy and slow, even on a good phone. It's the reason I uninstalled
it twice and won't reinstall it. While on Instagram, the user experience is
good. Probably leaving the camera on with effects is not a good choice.

PS: please WhatsApp, remove stories. It's not the place for it.

------
ybrah
I like stories on instagram because its not intrusive, unlike messenger,
facebook, and whatsapp. The reason I still use snapchat and pretty much
boycott stories that get handed out by facebook is because it feels like
they're using dark UI practices to force it down my throat.

Why does messenger open up my camera when I launch it? Why does it ask me to
put pictures that I send my friends on my public story? Why do peoples stories
take half of my messenger screen? It's really intrusive, and incredibly
annoying.

~~~
cerved
STORIES! STORIES! EVERYWHERE STORIES NOW EVEN THOUGH NO-ONE IS USING THEM

------
snaplove
1.Does this compare SNAPchat US/UK users with INSTA US/UK users?

2\. INSTA has users across the world and in countries where their unit
economics is a loss.

3\. Nobody makes ad profit from India/Brazil/Vietnam. SNAP wants to redefine
how valuation is done.

4\. Having billion users is a wrong metric altogether when most users doesn't
generate revenue. And yes, companies will always promise they will generate
revenue in 10 years or some BS.

~~~
WikipediasBad
Relevant username. But your #4 is silly, SNAP stock's valuation is exactly so
high because of "that BS" that you are complaining about other companies
doing.

------
techaddict009
Because Snapchat is only for rich people:
[https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3324753/snapchat-boss-even-
spe...](https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3324753/snapchat-boss-even-speigel-said-
app-is-only-for-rich-people-former-employee-alleges/)

------
faitswulff
Where does the "no patents in software" position stand in relation to this
story? Does it refer purely software (AKA Oracle v Google) or is it also
design and experiences like stories?

------
codathroway
The hacker news title is incorrect. The metric is DAUs not MAUS. dang can you
please correct?

I believe the article was changed after being published.

------
kneel
I'd be really interested to see how many of those 200M users are actually
people.

Instagram novelty/celeb/art/bs accounts are all over the place, it's fairly
lucrative to push products on the hot trend of the day and the whole platform
is pretty spammy.

Snapchat doesn't really have this problem, you don't interact with people you
don't know unless you seek them out. There is no easy way to add randoms on
snapchat, users tend to be actual users.

------
snackai
Outside their app snapchat as close to zero visibility. No share buttons on
the web, no snap ghosts in commercials (like "add us on facebook"), nothing.
They really have to come up with something there.

When Facebook had their IPO everyone argued about them having no revenue, but
they still had user growth, when Snap started they already had no user growth.
This combined with no revenue... Wall Street does not approve!

~~~
Helmet
"Outside their app snapchat as close to zero visibility. No share buttons on
the web, no snap ghosts in commercials (like "add us on facebook")..."

That's exactly the point. Snapchat has absolutely no interest in associating
themselves with Facebook. Snapchat caters to a entirely different demographic,
and being anti-Facebook is a large part of the appeal.

------
0xCMP
Wow, this is brutal. I wonder how Snap is going to make it out of this.

------
mmanfrin
Facebook's vassalization of Instagram was brilliant, in retrospect. Facebook
is free to pursue its imperial ambitions while Instagram follows the much
quicker and looser edge/leader features demanded by the market of Snap/IG/etc.

------
sekou
I remember reading Instagram blog posts and having a sense that engineering
the product well was something they held to high importance. Since then
they've been acquired by Facebook but their team still seems driven by those
kinds of values.

------
m3kw9
The UI is excellent, you can pause, go back and the cues are great to capture
attention

------
ronilan
In an alternate universe Instagram never got bought by Facebook, so Snap never
had room to grow.

But, then again, in same alternate universe YouTube never got bought by
Google, so Facebook never had room to grow.

Think alternate universes don't make sense?

Does this one does?

------
justintbassett
MAU isn't a great metric, I'd prefer to see both platforms' DAU

------
Network2020
Long-time lurker here...

I don't understand how Facebook cloning Snapchat is any different from Chinese
startups cloning various American apps. Why is cloning frowned-upon only when
the Chinese do it?

------
scirocco
Will Snapchat ever start selling to enterprise?

Taking their existing AR technology and apply to, let's say aircraft
technicians. Snapchat + Boeing partnership?

------
quxbar
For the record, both myself and my partner 'used' stories this month, only to
say 'yuck, can I turn this off?'

But hey, you gotta show off those metrics.

------
ojr
for whats its worth a lot of cool people/influencers are still using Snapchat
over Instagram, Kardashians, DJ Khaled, etc, this metric doesn't reflect my
reality, I wouldn't sell any $SNAP shares, I'm more likely to buy after a dip
when metrics like these are presented to the public, once people see revenue
the price will pick up again

------
samfisher83
Mark bought Instagram for 1 billion and now it's probably worth maybe 25. That
was a pretty genius move by him.

------
s0me0ne
I'm hoping snapchat wins, its easy for FB with tons of money to just copy
another company

------
johnnydoe9
Snapchat clearly went out of their way to ignore Android users, Instagram
works so much better.

------
notadoc
I can't think of a bull case for Snapchat, but admittedly I am not the target
demographic.

------
Graphon1
Pinning stickers! I am so glad the USA is still leading in innovation. Thank
you to all the hard workers who devoted their time to solving this problem as
opposed to working on some vague or diffuse health-related issue. The world is
so much better now that we can pin stickers on instagram gifs.

~~~
tomhoward
This is not just a tiresome sneer, but a myopic one.

Leave aside that interpersonal communication is one of the most fundamental of
human needs, and thus any new medium or mechanism that enables people to do
that more effectively and enjoyably is valuable.

What matters more is that many of the the technologies that have been
developed by companies like Google and Facebook, in order to ( _sneer_ ) get
people to click on more ads, or ( _sneer_ ) let teenagers share duckfaced,
princess-filtered selfies with their friends, have been open-sourced and can
now be freely used by researchers working in medicine, climate science,
energy, cleantech, particle physics, etc.

I'll bet the medical researchers who are using TensorFlow to improve cancer
detection [1], or the CERN researchers who use Cassandra to store and process
data gathered in the ATLAS experiment [2], aren't sneering when they see
Google and Facebook doing things that make themselves more popular and
commercially successful.

[1] [https://blog.altoros.com/tensorflow-and-openpower-driving-
fa...](https://blog.altoros.com/tensorflow-and-openpower-driving-faster-
cancer-recognition-and-diagnosis.html)

[2]
[https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1432912](https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1432912)

------
sandergansen
What do you think is going to be Snapchat's next move?

------
2_listerine_pls
How are these claims verified?

------
tomphoolery
what is "MAU"?

~~~
justusw
Monthly Active Users

------
mbloom1915
this is why snap is not a good stock purchase until the inevitable tech dip
comes -- say another 6-12 mo will be ripe to buy?

~~~
lucasmullens
"inevitable tech dip" A dip in stock is inevitable? Sounds like you should be
shorting the stock if you somehow know better than investors.

------
CorduroyBottom
What Instagram is doing is borderline illegal.

Facebook sat in stasis for years without innovating their products. Now they
are using their incumbent position to steal every single snapchat feature with
impunity.

Of course that's par for the course in tech. Where the giant companies throw
their weight around to crush competition.

Will there be an antitrust suit?

~~~
martinko
There is nothing immoral about what they are doing. Why should snapchat have a
monopoly on functionality?

~~~
CorduroyBottom
Facebook is the one with a monopoly. They're clearly abusing their privileged
position to stifle competition.

It also sets a very poor precedent for entrepreneurial people.

~~~
elastic_church
So your argument is that monopolies are illegal? hahaha go back to wikipedia
you're regurgitating some media version of a Microsoft case that you never
read yourself

~~~
dang
We've banned this account for violating the site guidelines and ignoring our
requests to stop.

