Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Instagram launches “Data Download” tool to let you leave (techcrunch.com)
187 points by artsandsci 9 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 98 comments



>Two weeks ago TechCrunch called on Instagram to build an equivalent to Facebook’s “Download Your Information feature so if you wanted to leave for another photo sharing network, you could. The next day it announced this tool would be coming and now TechCrunch has spotted it rolling out to users.

So we've moved from companies trying to make compliance to GDPR look like they are doing us a favor out of the goodness of their hearts to now tech sites trying to take the credit for that too. Who will be the next I wonder.


A company using it's compliance to regulation as a PR exercise? Who'd have thought it!

Phone companies in the UK at least do this boasting EU free roaming as a "feature" they're so nice to provide, except that it's UK law. Three are the only network that did this voluntarily (and their Feel at home thing is also many places outside the EU which is nice)


It's a EU law, not an UK one


I actually knew that, fuck knows why I typed UK.


And a ridiculous one. It's a Common Market, not a Price-Flat Market.


That is exactly what the regulations put in place. They don't mandate a price-flat market.


There're safeguards put in to prevent price-flat market situation. And it's damn nice when a day's trip to neighbouring country doesn't mean switching SIM cards or outrageous fees.


Explain that too people where their SIM card switches to the neighbooring countries provider.

And more importantly, surfing while on vacation in the EU ( 100 mb) won't cost you 200 €'s anymore. Some people had a vacation bill of 9.000 € of their provider ( source: newspaper & victim was local politician)


It means more competition, because consumers can choose between effectively any provider in the EU. So if the providers in say Germany have awful deals, you could get a SIM from a company in the UK that has less shitty deals.


The tabloid newspapers in the UK do this sort of thing all the time. I'm not sure what that says about TechCrunch, if anything.


"We always had that feature!"


In the past, when a government sent an Internet company a National Security Letter (or equivalent), it was a lot of work for them to dig up every trace of content that user has ever produced or had recorded about them -- think, for example, of a Google account, which might have GMail archives, chat logs, search history, YouTube videos, Google+ posts, Google Voice records, Chrome backups....

It used to be really hard to gather all that information and package it up in a nice little bundle. It used to be hard for a company to get their software engineers to quietly implement such functionality across all products without getting internal angst and bad press leaks.

But now, companies can just tell their software engineers that they're writing user-friendly data-portability features. Across all product lines, they'll happily code away, completely oblivious to the fact that their code is also going to be used for this other purpose.


If you extend your logic (anything that can be used for government surveillance was created for government surveillance) pretty much anything is guilty of this. The existence of Facebook itself, Google providing an e-mail service, anyone providing an e-mail service, anyone providing access to the internet...

That's probably the least charitable way of looking at this. It's a tool for data portability that gives users access to their own content, in a way they weren't previous able to do. If the government wanted some data on a user I think they're going to get it from the company whether this service exists or not.


> If you extend your logic (anything that can be used for government surveillance was created for government surveillance)

To be clear, that's not my logic.


The implication is that if you create the technology for “good” then you also make its misuse possible.


Why stop at technology?

You can use pretty much anything for good or bad. Rocks, Nitrogen, Automobiles, Thoughts.. it's an endless list.


The only thing you can't use for good is Windows Vista


But now, companies can just tell their software engineers that they're writing user-friendly data-portability features. Across all product lines, they'll happily code away, completely oblivious to the fact that their code is also going to be used for this other purpose.

If a developer was not oblivious to the fact that their code might be used for this other purpose, what do you think a typical developer a) would do and b) should do?


Google first implemented Takeout like 10 years ago (Checking Wikipedia, in 2011). So they are more of the anti-example for your argument.


I'm not following -- 2011 was a decade after the Patriot Act was passed. Google had been receiving NSLs for years by that point, which likely used to be much harder to respond to before the creation of Takeout.

Now, as soon as Legal signs off, the production of the ZIP file is probably completely automated. And the programmers who made that possible probably believed their code was going to be used solely for their users' data portability.

(Disclaimer: Though I used to work there, all of the above is pure speculation.)


Takeout was implemented by the Data Liberation Front, an independent 20%-time collaboration between engineers in Google, accompanied by whimsical videos[0]. Takeout was never anywhere close to comprehensive, and the DLF didn't last[1].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP4NI5o-WUw

[1] https://www.twitter.com/dataliberation


It turns out reports of the Data Liberation Front demise have been greatly exaggerated. We are still very actively improving Google Takeout[0] as well as developing other products[1]. The thing that didn't last was running a quasi-official Twitter account, perhaps without official blessing.

Its true that the Data Liberation Front did start as a group of 20%ers, but like the much less successful GMail, we got turned in a real team and now we have reorgs and TPS and everything.

[0] Check out the new My Activity service as an example of some of the new data we have added: https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout/custom/my_activi...

[1] https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/12/09/google-unveils-gr...


> The thing that didn't last was running a quasi-official Twitter account, perhaps without official blessing.

Running a quasi-official blog without blessing didn't last either [0]. Glad to hear the team got turned into a permanent one internally, but the lack of a public info on its existence doesn't fill me with confidence that this is something Google wants or prioritises at a management level.

The gp was talking about companies' engineers writing "user-friendly data-portability features. Across all product lines". Is that the case with Takeout at Google, or is it just a job given to one relatively small team of self-starters working on a project that was never spearheaded by management?

[0] http://dataliberation.blogspot.com/


i think this is a false statement. i have worked for companies with lots of user data. the tools to download or retain all user data for legal reasons existed although they were not customer facing. one particular company i worked for had a tool to download all files to disk and partition into ~700mb chunks, helping you achieve the end goal of burning to files to CD rom. this was used frequently during subpoenas.

i see the ability to download and delete your account as a good improvement


What's the part of my comment that you think is false?


Presumably the part where you say that in the past this wasn't the case.


Presumably the numerous mentions of it being "really hard" to do this kind of thing.


Good point. If I was working with sensitive data, I would definitely question a decision on allowing data to be exported somewhere. I'd probably get confirmation from my manager in how that data was allowed to be accessed/requested. But if I was coding an export feature for users to download all their data in one click, I wouldn't think twice about it. I would assume it was used for that purpose. That's scary.


On the other hand, now users get the same level of access to their own data that governments have had for years. Silver linings, and such.


This might not be completely true. It would be trivial to determine who is requesting the data dump and include/exclude content based on that.


If the government only gets a bundle from people they are specifically interested in, that's an improvement over letting them trawl the whole dataset.


The data is already centralized in a "data lake" or data warehouse largely because a lot of data is desired by R&D driven data science teams to produce recommendations and personalizations. Engineers build the data collection without cringing because it really does, in addition to driving ad targeting etc, also drive real user features. You also tend to be bought-in when you work at a company. Honestly there is so much liquidity in the employment market in SFBA and Seattle and has been for so long now that a lot of sorting has taken place.

I think.


I think people are confusing lock in with lack of choice.

Any network platform is creating lock in through network effects and your data that is stored there is also creating some amount of lock in. You could choose to abandon that network for any other one, there will be some pain felt in regards to personal data but that's about it.

In a lack of choice context, you literally have no choice. Like with many locations and the cable provider that you use. If you don't use them, you have no alternative.

Most of these lock-in platforms are really not a necessity, and the reality is that it's not the data as much as the network itself that becomes the large lock in mechanism.

But either way, it's not the same thing as having only one option available. Then you truly have no ability to move elsewhere.


If you do want to delete your account, and you're in the EU, wait until after the 25th of May. Once the GDPR is in force, your rights concerning your data when you delete your account are much, much stronger.


Okay, is this really true or not? Because I marked my FB acc for deletion a few days ago and reading this so much is making me think of cancelling and waiting until now, but it really doesn't make much sense


You have nothing to lose by waiting. And Facebook has been as shady as they possibly could be with GDPR (the Facial recognition opt-in dialog is a prime example of that. What a farce).


Sounds true to me. May 25 is the start date, and the penalties for noncompliance are insane.


I thought it worked retroactively too.


It is possible that there is some other rule in place for that, but the GDPR isn't retroactive as far as I remember.


GDPR is already active. It's just the punishment section that is not yet active. On May 25th, if a company has (still) data about you, they have to comply or (now) face the consequences.


That's a really pedantic interpretation :) It has been adopted and published, but enforcement starts May 25. Because nothing can actually happen until May 25, I think that is a more reasonable date to say that it is "active".


I keep hearing this but do people really think EU ends up going hard on fb and others? FB's whole business revolves around breaking those rules.. not to mention shadow profiles and other shady stuff


Facebook is the greatest pound for pound profit machine in recent history (formulated as high enough sales to at least be high up on a Fortune 500 equivalent of the time, combined with very high margins). It surpasses Standard Oil, Microsoft, Apple, Exxon, GM, Ford, US Steel, IBM and Aramco at their peaks.

~44% net income margins; 50% operating income margins; on $40 billion in sales. Nothing like that has ever existed before. Apple, which is of course a huge profit generator, is typically closer to 20-25% net income margins. Microsoft got pretty close to Facebook type figures at its margin peak in 1999-2000.

Facebook has absolutely nothing to fear from GDPR. They can permanently abandon the entire EU market in terms of advertising, provide their product with zero advertising in that market, and they'd still have one of the most profitable businesses on earth and would continue growing larger yet.

A 4% tax on global revenue? Laughable for Facebook. And that's the maximum hit. That's $1.6 billion last year for Facebook. That drops their net income margin down to 40% instead of 44% (~$16b in profit instead of ~$17.6b).

They could pay a $1.6 billion fine every year for the next century just out of cash and never notice it (profit would continue adding to their cash, and then returns yielded on the cash-equivalent holdings would pay for the $1.6 billion fine).

Unless the EU dramatically increases the penalties, it's barely even a speeding ticket for Facebook. And in reality, they can easily avoid it just by complying with GDPR as it pertains to the EU. Facebook has such an extraordinary profit machine they can afford to drop the profitability of that market, and simply not care.


A 4% tax on global revenue? Laughable for Facebook. And that's the maximum hit.

The GDPR is applied by each member state, and Facebook operates in them all. I see no reason in the GDPR why each member state can't apply its own fine. How does 28% sound?

https://nrkbeta.no/2018/04/05/facebook-reported-to-data-prot...


I wonder if they purposefully downsized the resolution of the images to give its users a big "fuck you" for leaving, like Facebook does (all FB images from the "data download" option were downsized to ~800x600)?


It's my impression that the images get lossily compressed upon upload so not even sure if they even had an alternative here.


I don't know about Instagram, but on FB they definitely aren't. You can still access the full size image, but when you download all your data, they only give you the 800x600 version, "conveniently" stripped of all exif data.


I like to plug Google takeout[0] in these convos, which also lets you export data if you want to leave. Many people don't seem to know about it, but it is quite mature and has been around for many years.

EDIT: To expand on this a bit more, I do wish there was more industry standardization when it comes to data import/export. Is there any standardized format for chat history, for example?

[0] https://takeout.google.com


This may be a naive question, but since I don't use social media at all (save for a pretty dormant linked-in account) I really don't see the use of downloading your photos from a picture sharing site.

Is it because of the contacts you have and would that data be in any usable format?

While I can see the appeal of a photo sharing site to share pictures I would have to be incredibly reckless or stupid to use such a site for archival purposes (let alone that I certainly wouldn't trust them not to wreck my pictures with some heavy handed compression or scaling).

Is it just me who cares about my original images enough to archive them redundantly on a variety of storage media? And if that's not so, why would I ever care to be able to retrieve my pictures from such a site?


Most people aren't like you :)

I would imagine many people lose photos over the years, whether it's getting a new phone or simply not understanding how iCloud/Google Photos etc. works. Photos from Instagram will also have any filters you added.


>Is it just me who cares about my original images enough to archive them redundantly on a variety of storage media?

I'd say pretty much yes, especially when talking about pictures taken with smartphones and "variety of storage media" not just meaning the somewhat automatic (requiring just an one time setup) platform cloud backup.


I clicked "I am 13 years old or below" just because I could and am now locked out because I am not old enough obviously.

I wonder if I come back in 6 months and try to revive my account by contacting Instagram they will still have the account on file.


you can thank the EU-GDPR for this. The EU will enforce fines of 20 million Euros or 4% of annual global turnover if they don't comply.


Thank's to GDPR and EU.


Note that this doesn't seem to include your photos (even though the download page says it does) - I got a 386kb zip file of JSON. It doesn't include any information -about- your photos either (when you posted, image filename, where you posted it, your title, comments on it, etc.)

I assume this is some kind of first draft or staged rollout?


Thanks to GDPR.


It's remarkable how many "we're being transparent! out of the sheer goodness of our hearts!" emails I've gotten lately.

I also think it's hilarious that Techcrunch is acting like it's their doing that this is coming.


It's unfortunate how Instagram, as a very popular social network, has a very slow speed of improvement. Too many features missing, UI still has issues (not to mention the lack of a dark theme), the UX is just "weird" and the setting menu reminds me of Winphone settings: too cluttered, many useless buttons, and no icons!

On top of that, many times images won't just load. And Videos play automatically, consuming much internet traffic.


> lack of a dark theme

Why should this be a priority for anyone?


Dark themes can provide significant energy efficiency improvements on OLED screens which are becoming increasingly popular. Though IG would probably benefit significantly less than text-heavy apps because the screen is mostly taken up by photos which aren't impacted by dark themes.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9394/analysing-amoled-power-e...

This article is a bit old, but on the Galaxy S6 at full brightness displaying an image with 40% average picture level saves half a watt compared to full white.


The same reason I use dark theme on HN as well.


I completely disagree. One of the main reasons I prefer Instagram is precisely that it's not packed to the brim with features I don't use.


Instagram has become the dominant image sharing social network with over 800 million users. It shouldn’t need to lock up users’ data in order to keep them around.

That's fine for Instagram, but what about startups that want to compete with them? They'll find that users will build up collections of photos and videos (perhaps using proprietary filters that make a given application popular for a while) at their expense, and then instantly abandon their platforms. GDPR is great, or at least not a negative for large platforms, but a disaster for startups.


> Instagram has become the dominant image sharing social network with over 800 million users. It shouldn’t need to lock up users’ data in order to keep them around.

> That's fine for Instagram, but what about startups that want to compete and find that users can now build up collections of photos and videos (perhaps using proprietary filters that make a given application popular for a while) at their expense and then instantly abandon their platforms? GDPR is great, or at least not a negative for large companies, but a disaster for startups.

So what are you saying? That startups should have the right to lock up their users just so they can have a business?

No, sorry. If your business depends on "locking up users", maybe you shouldn't have a business.


So you would rather have only 2-3 giant internet companies that obey GDPR, than a web of smaller sites like internet used to be? I find it a bit arrogant to think of users as so dumb that they cannot choose for themselves which site to use.

A better law would be one that simply required a disclosure and transparency of what a company does with the user data.


[flagged]


If you have a blog you probably want comments. If you have comments you need a banning mechanism and IP logs to avoid ban evasion. A hacker or a spammer would send you a SAR or a Right to Be Forgotten request, to purge his IP and spam history to prevent you from mitigation of his spam. You can hire a lawyer to oppose that request. The lawyer has to individually weigh circumstances in each case, to justify either a denial of request or limiting its scope. Some of the requests will be fake, some will be real. You will have to do dilligence on each. Does your small blog have a budget for this?


People will figure it out.

I'm amazed how people have such a strong faith in "technology will solve everything", but the moment you suggest that a piece of regulation might make anything trickier, all of a sudden technology isn't good enough any more.

Isn't this a business oppportunity? You've just spotted a difficult problem that (seemingly) you're convinced will be a big issue soon. Go solve it!


I run a company with 9 million MAUs. I can't figure it out without spending a million. Complying with GDPR totally changes our finances, unless we want to surrender to spam. Collecting data is essential for spam mitigation. It's hard to compete with big companies as is, without "discovering" new artificial obstacles created by regulators!


If you're serious, I would love to hear more. I'm not saying I'm sure I could help you, but maybe we could shoot some ideas?


Just as an FYI it is not trivial for a small site to comply with the GDPR unless it is really simple, like a static web page with no cookies and no third party libraries or javascript.


So what are you saying? That startups should have the right to lock up their users just so they can have a business?

I'm saying that startups should have the right to engineer their platforms in the way that they see fit. Because of GDPR, no startup (at least those that accept EU traffic) will ever achieve the social lock-in that Instagram has. Instagram built their user base in an era where it was difficult for average users to get their pictures out. Did your startup come up with a new set of filters that make photos go really viral? Awesome! Users will just make it in your app and then export it to Instagram, where people will actually see it. You'll go bankrupt...but Instagram usage will increase as a result of your efforts.


> Startups should have the right to engineer their platforms in the way that they see fit. Because of GDPR, no startup (at least those that accept EU traffic) will ever achieve the social lock-in that Instagram has. Instagram built their user base in an era where it was difficult for average users to get their pictures out. Did your startup come up with a new set of filters that make photos go really viral? Awesome! Users will just make it in your app and then export it to Instagram, where people will actually see it. You'll go bankrupt...but Instagram usage will increase as a result of your efforts.

Do you realize how backwards that is?

All throughout history it's been the case that circumstances change. Maybe what was a viable business to start before, isn't now. Well, those that took the chance when this was allowed are banking on it, but now no one else can.

Your argument is: person X exploited bad thing Z before, so we must continue to allow back thing Z just in case person Y also wants to exploit it. No, that's completely backwards.

Some people got rich off slavery, so we shouldn't make slavery illegal because my startup wants to take advantage of it too. /s


It's astounding to me that people believe they're entitled to force free services to provide them extra features by the force of law.

You're not allowed to launch a service that provides X, and if you want to, you must also include X + Y + Z.

Am I allowed to even open a port to a server on my local machine that allows users to voluntarily enter some information and does something with it, without being subjected to the full force of the legal system?

I have some experience with the US medical software industry, and this sort of feature-checklist regulation doesn't improve anything. All it does is lock in the existing players and prevent any innovations that aren't explicitly outlined in the law.


> It's astounding to me that people believe they're entitled to force free services to provide them extra features by the force of law.

> You're not allowed to launch a service that provides X, and if you want to, you must also include X + Y + Z.

If you stop for a bit you'll realize that most things in society work like that. It's called regulation. Once you get used to it you'll stop being astounded and wonder how things were ever done differently.


Right, that's fine in the real world, where the existence of something affects you. Real objects take up physical space, and can be noisy, polluting, or inaccessible.

Nobody is forcing you to look at, interact with, or even acknowledge the existence of my local web server. There is no stronger sense of the word "voluntary" than the one that can be used to describe web services. My service doesn't even exist to you, unless you explicitly choose to engage with it.

You, on the other hand, believe that it should not be allowed to exist for other people (at legal gunpoint!), unless it conforms to the features that you believe it should have.

This is more akin to not being allowed to invite people into my home, unless my bathroom and kitchen meet certain (arbitrary, non-structural) requirements.


The same is true in many other cases. For example, employment law - nobody forces people to work for me, yet there are many restrictions on what I can write in the contract.

Defending a laissez-faire model of society, only with restrictions on externalities, is reasonable, but it's also very far from how societies currently operate. The GDPR is not an exception. In fact, not even on websites - the Data Protection Directive, from 1995, already implemented restrictions on how EU sites can be run. The GDPR is only an expansion on that.


You're making this argument as if the whole FB/Cambridge Analytica thing hadn't happened. There is power in these systems and when they're affecting our governmental structures we have a vested interest in regulating them.

This is perfectly analogous to the real world where e.g. pollution has tangible negative externalities. It will always be the case that when responsive governments exist, and a thing comes into existence that people perceive as a threat, people will leverage the government to mitigate that threat.

If your home were perched on a cliff above a school playground, to use a contrived example, the townspeople would have a keen interest in the integrity of your home including the kitchen and bathroom.


>This is more akin to not being allowed to invite people into my home, unless my bathroom and kitchen meet certain (arbitrary, non-structural) requirements.

Like fire code? :)


I was debating whether to remove that sentence, and ended up adding the (non-structural) part because I though someone might take the analogy that way. Note that fire codes in particular don't exist in many places, including much of the U.S.

Nobody is going to die from not exporting their data - except in medical software, where the current U.S. feature checklist regulations haven't helped. For many websites, GDPR is next to pointless while adding broad legal requirements.


You were subject to the full force of the legal system way before you set up a port on a server.

And you can totally set up a port on a server to allow users to voluntarily enter some information and do stuff with it. The law does not prevent that at all.


I think that you're misunderstanding the spirit of the "full force" comment. The fact that I'm subject to the "full force of the legal system" to with regards to preventing murder, doesn't justify every new regulation and its effects.

Does the law prevent it, if I don't want to spend time adding a full account verification system for personal data dumps, permanent data deletion, and other requirements?


You're comparing the inability to easily move pictures from one service to another to slavery? That's quite the leap, though not unexpected on HN these days.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy Instagram if you are in a GDPR-affected country, because no competitor will ever emerge as a result of this law. They'll have all of your data, and you'll have to agree to it being analyzed in whatever way they choose because there is not and never will be another service to go to (which renders this entire point of this law moot).


[flagged]


>You say "you're comparing??!" so you can avoid addressing my point.

Why would I address your absurd “point” that it’s good to have laws that lock-in entrenched competitors and stifle competition and innovation from new startups? I just assumed people would read and instantly dismiss such an absurd notion, as I did. I guess I saw no “point” in it.


> Why would I address your absurd “point” that it’s good to have laws that lock-in entrenched competitors and stifle competition and innovation from new startups? I just assumed people would read and instantly dismiss such an absurd notion, as I did. I guess I saw no “point” in it.

You're being dishonest. My point was NOT that it's good to have laws that lock-in entrenched players. It was that there are bigger things to consider than each one's business model, and that just because some people took advantage of something in the past isn't a reason not to correct something, and that when things change some businesses die others are born new, and it's always been like that. It's called capitalism, works quite well.

But I was saying: you're being dishonest, wittingly misrepresenting my point, and so I have no further interest here. Good luck.


My point was NOT that it's good to have laws that lock-in entrenched players.

And yet here you are defending GDPR.


> I'm saying that startups should have the right to engineer their platforms in the way that they see fit.

We don't let people build homes or other buildings as they see fit because over time we've realized that the failure of one building can adversely affect the neighborhood.

We don't let businesses handle their financials in any way they see fit because over time we've realized that using a generally accepted set of accounting principles helps avoid cascading financial disasters.

Now, honestly, how can you say with a straight face that we should let businesses manage data in any way they see fit because it's "their platform"?

Nonsense, we have an obligation to regulate how data is collected, processed, and used or sold to protect society against the adverse effects of data that is used to abuse.


Only public companies are required to respect GAAP, and they choose to do so because they want access to a regulated market.

Is a building on Pluto subject to the same building codes? If my server spontaneously combusts, should I warn those with IPs near mine that theirs may catch fire?

You have no obligation to visit my web service, enter data into it, or interact with it. It takes up no space, and you have no "passing" interactions with it.

The contention is that others should not be allowed to use my web service, unless it provides you certain features.

I'm believe we should support privacy on the web, but this is not the way to do it.


Well, remember, what is actually happening here is that your web service is deploying code, including malware, onto my computer. The malware payload steals all of my personal data unbeknownst to me, and sends it to random 3rd parties.

So, that's pretty nasty, and yes, I want it to be regulated.


No, not my web service. Some may be, but my web service is still punished. Most of the rules apply even if you are sharing no data with third parties.

If this was just about third-party trackers, the EU could have written a law similar to the cookie warning. People who care about that (including myself) can use browser addons or block third-party cookies.


I think these rules are all fine, desirable even -- if your web service isn't able to follow them, perhaps consider buying some off-the-shelf applications with built in support for these regulations.

This isn't punishment any more than making sure your electrical box is 72" off the ground and your gas meter has nothing around it within 5'.


Thank you, all great examples. Gee, people can be quite blinded when you challenge their worldview a tiny bit.


Peoole can die without building codes. Nobody is going to die if you get a targeted ad. This is all a false equivalence.


The GDPR doesn't ban targeted ads. You just have to get explicit consent. Only yes means yes :)


I think we should just outright reject the notion that user lockin is something startups (or any company) has a right to. I don't think it's really good for consumers when companies become 'platforms' that you can't leave. Well functioning markets allow users to easily switch between services.

Also:

>startups that want to compete and find that users can now build up collections of photos and videos at their expense

If users using your service is 'at your expense' and not 'for your profit' then that seems to be mostly a problem with the company's business model.


You're saying "what about startups that want to compete" while arguing it's not fair to make them have to actually compete. I don't follow.


So you are saying they will have to have some sort of business model from the get go?


users shouldn't stay just because it's inconvenient to leave, they should stay because the product is good


What about them? If they provide a platform that is good for users, users will continue to use them. If not, the users will take their data elsewhere. That's the way it should work.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: