Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Facebook Makes Moves on Instagram Users (bloomberg.com)
120 points by pdog 7 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 115 comments

As a member of the relatively hip 20-something social set in New York, I can say with confidence that Instagram is "where it's at" with this group. The introduction of stories and other Snapchat-like features has dramatically increased Instagram's usage among my friends (and definitely snagged plenty of app-hours from the former).

Like the article says, Instagram is absolutely an escape from the hostile interfaces and hostile posts that abound on core Facebook. It's still cool and it's still fun. Whatever the internal power dynamics, it seems unlikely that Facebook would be stupid enough to throw this away. What do they care if their bread gets buttered through the Instagram app?

Another interesting thing to note about Instagram is that a high follower count has become a status symbol. As people invest time and effort in building a large following, their commitment to the platform increases. It wouldn't surprise me if Instagram accounts for more than half of Facebook's value in the near future.

Facebook has been steadily making Instagram worse since they acquired it, by adding more and more features. Basically, they’re turning it into Facebook, the existing product, because that’s what they know how to do.

Currently, users in my Instagram social group are pretty unhappy with the change to a filtered feed, which produces a lack of visibility. This is exactly like the Facebook newsfeed, Where I can post something to my 2000, 500 friends… It gets no likes and no comments, compared to posting in a group with basically the same member where the same content receives plenty of attention, because it was actually displayed to the people who chose to follow me, without me giving Facebook money. There’s not much point in having 8,000 followers if they only show it to 2 percent of them.

> Facebook has been steadily making Instagram worse since they acquired it

Define worse, because basically every metric I'm aware of says that instagram is more popular and has higher user engagement than ever.

I think your "filtered feed" complaint is something that really ticks off a narrow segment of users, but that the remaining 99% doesn't care about at all. All they notice is a more interesting and relevant feed. Look at it this way - basically every major social network (instagram, twitter, facebook, youtube, etc) has implemented some sort of filtered feed. Every time some small segment of tech-savvy users or power users gets extremely annoyed and complains loudly, but I'm unaware of any network reversing the decision and going back to pure chronological - to me, that says that their internal engagement numbers overwhelmingly justify the decision.

The purpose of the algorithmic feed (vs. chronological) is to decouple the surfaced content from clear and present attributes of the content like its creation time and author, such that the feed is a neverending, if mostly pleasing smattering of content from the accounts you follow. Platforms like it because they can opaquely tune the feed for a particular end:

- help users who follow few accounts, or follow low-volume accounts, seem like they have more content to look at; this helps retention

- lift viral content higher, to reward users producing popular content, and expose it to other users assuming wisdom of the crowds

- expose a different set of content on successive views; this helps engagement

- put ads in your feed with higher frequency, whose perceived density would be much more jarring given the reference points provided by the unchanged ordering of a chronological feed

In many cases, these changes disadvantage the most the sort of people the platform cares to retain the least.

I find the opposite. Things often repeat with the algorithmic feed when I open the app again, things from days or weeks ago, while there is already fresh content that was posted minutes ago. But since it's not in time order, I miss the new things.

I agree. I often am presented with posts from 2-4 days ago, even when the people involved have posted newer content. This is awful when I'm going to an event or convention and trying to see what people are posting about it. And also, run out of content on IG and FB and it starts repeating posts, even though I follow thousands of people and obviously there is a huge amount of new content available which FB is not presenting. It seems like they select content from a rotating pool of 20-30 people at any time.

> ... seem like they have more content to look at; this helps retention

Instagram added this a little while ago[1], which flies in the face of these "never-ending feed" complaints.

[1]: https://imgur.com/B3gOVA2

The filter newsfeed complaints are important because they come from content creators.

Like I said above, I feel they have made it worse by adding more and more features. They added video, and that was cool. They added messaging, which that was handy. They successfully copied Snapchat, and that was a plus, I guess. They added a location map, OK. Tagging people’s faces in photos... live video with endless notifications... and now IGTV, which is heavily promoted despite being very different than the original app. It’s definitely what I would call feature and mission creep. My opinion is that Instagram was good and successful in the first place because it simple, like Twitter. It appears to me their intention is to replace the old Facebook product with Instagram, probably because younger people don’t use Facebook much. I would guess this is partially because FB is so cluttered and full of unnecessary and annoying features. That’s the direction I see the Instagram app heading in, which is not what their audience wants.

Facebook (the company) feels like a one trick pony. They don't seem to able to tailor their products to focus on the unique aspects that make them attractive to their users. Instead, everything collapses to a common feature set.

Most content creators I follow primarily use stories, not the feed.

That’s part of the problem. Instagram has changed into a completely different app from when I signed up for five years ago. It used to be posting photos, which I still want to do, but most of the focus is on this supposedly off-the-cuff video, which is almost never done off-the-cuff like the app UI encourages.

I want to add that the point isn’t that the feed is filtered, it’s that Facebook does it poorly. Apparently it is designed to suit their needs, not those of users. More than power users are turned off by this, because it’s not a reaction to being aware that the newsfeed is filtered (though I have seen references to ‘the algo’), it’s the effects.

When I repeatedly post on my FB wall and receive no interaction, I stop posting. When my FB newsfeed is full of annoying political topics, though I unfollowed the last 20 people who posted about annoying political topics, it’s boring and frustrating to read it, so I stop. Then, when I go to the pages of actual friends and family members whose content I care about, and find they have posted things that have not been displayed to me while days of annoying political topics have been, it’s obvious that something isn’t working right.

I believe the number of people that want a non-algorithmic feed is way bigger than 1%. A ton of people signed up for Vero when it first launched specifically because they advertised having a non-algorithmic feed. It’s a frequent complaint amongst even my non-technical friends.

I agree, it’s a constant refrain among the crowd I follow. If there was an alternative with enough usage they would have jumped ship a year or two ago.

The people I know who use Instagram are a network of artists with very dedicated community. We notice right away how things affect our views and take it personally because we are chiefly individuals with nanobusinesses doing all our marketing ourselves, mainly on IG.

People were eager to move to Ello, Tsū and most recently Vero. It seems to be easier to get the content creators there than the audience.

instagram tv is crap

Disagree. Replicating Snapchat's "Stories" feature was one of the best value-adds to the platform since Instagram was built.

Sure, duplicating a competitors successful app and combining it with Instagram made Instagram more substantial, and was well received. Not surprising since Snapchat already proved that the system worked. Addding Stories also changed the focus of the app significantly. As a small business, artist and user, I don’t consider it better, just different. I’m not your typical video consumer though.


There are many ways to assess app quality, and there are also many different things to which Instagram’s growth could be ascribed.

Yeah - great response without going into details what those things are.

It’s not surprising that the young rich beautiful people like Instagram. But I still appreciate that Facebook, Reddit and other text-based platforms allow an ugly person with a dumpy apartment and rusty car to publish their thoughts with the same format that Bill Gates would have.

I don’t see why beauty would improve the quality of Instagram posts, other than for people in the beauty business. For friends following friends (which I assume is the majority of users, I don’t follow a single person I don’t know personally and that doesn’t also follow me) beauty and glamour isn’t really important. I just post pix of holidays and kids to keep family up to date and entertain my friends. Yes I’m neither young, rich or beautiful.

For thoughts in text I think twitter is a better platform than fb.

What does Bill Gates have to do with this? (I was with you up to that point.)

it seems unlikely that Facebook would be stupid enough to throw this away

This sentiment expresses the difference between being 20 and being 40. Over the years, you will witness many companies snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for no fathomable reason.

> Another interesting thing to note about Instagram is that a high follower count has become a status symbol.

Vanity is a helluva drug.

It really is.

As a relatively new user, I would follow a lot of, lets say, good looking folks. I quickly realized that it had a huge detrimental effect on my self perception and image. Now I mostly follow friends and people I know, and maybe a few politicians but very few celebrities and such.

I usually say, if you have social media, follow people who create stuff and who create stuff just for the sole purpose of creating something. People who aren't interested in being richer. People who don't even have the slightest interest in their own ego. Why? One: Because they are capital-t true artists. And, if we are on social media, we should be interested in people who create for a living. People who, for heaven's sake, aren't spending their day consuming away. Two: Because we have a tendency to unconsciously consume things every day. What we unconsciously consume day in and day out has a significant impact on how we view the world and ourselves. And the way we think about ourselves and the world, that is what indicates and determines our fate. So steer away from the news, corporations, etc, and follow people, individuals or small companies, who create stuff. I.e. Vimeo is a cool platform of cool people creating stuff.

On Instagram I have not had the experience you had. I follow a lot of nice-to-look-at accounts and it makes me just a little bit happier. Also some are comedians and some are corporate media accounts for travel-related companies, things to maybe daydream about later.

I don't visit every day but it is a nice break.

I mostly ignore stories.

Do you have kids? I find that young single people get jealous and status conscious when looking at the rich and famous. As someone with a daughter and a paunch it makes me happy to get a glimpse of the beautiful people because I don’t actually want their life.

> Do you have kids?

I am a proud and highly entertained uncle with nieces and nephews ages 2 to 32.

> I find that young single people get jealous

But really the travel part is something that anyone could enjoy. People get interested in travel at all ages. The bug hit me only a couple of years ago but I know people way younger who want to travel.

> What do they care if their bread gets buttered through the Instagram app?

Three things immediately come to mind:

A. They paid a lot of money to acquire Instagram and want that investment to pay off.

2. There are users on Instagram from whom Facebook can extract value and profit.

D. If there is a way to make a buck off a user and their activity on a Facebook property, rest assured FB will take the step to make that buck.

I keep thinking that, in the grand scheme of things, the Instagram acquisition was a bargain.

It has actually made me wonder why Instagram needs Facebook at all. If they had managed to stay independent, I'm sure they could have continued to do very, very well.

Instagram was barely two years old when FB acquired them for $1B along with a promise to allow Ig to continue to operate independently. It'd be very hard for most founders/investors to pass up such a deal, particularly with an app that was even more of a one-trick-pony at the time.

SNAP was offered bucketloads of cash and refused. WhatsApp agreed to be acquired but now both founders are gone. The impression I get about FB from these stories is that its pretty much a Faustian bargain to join them...

They were bought by Facebook a long time ago. Who can say how they would be doing if that hadn’t happened?

Honestly, the features that Facebook added isn't really innovative. I'm sure they must have a really nice, highly optimized backend and such but if SNAP can stay independent and IPO, I'm pretty sure Instagram could have managed to as well.

If you think about it, SNAP would be doing a lot better if Facebook hadn't bolted on the stories feature on Instagram. The Facebook version of stories really really sucks.

All in hindsight of course. But it seems like a shame, a real missed opportunity to create value and stay independent at the same time.

Facebook’s value add isn’t features, it’s money (in the form of ad sales).

Same in Toronto. 22+ is Instagram only. A few years ago you would add each other on Facebook. Now it’s Phone or Instagram socially, Twitter in tech circles, LinkedIn in business circles. People over 30 yrs will add you on Facebook but nobody younger bothers anymore.


Facebook scooping up Instagram has to be one of the best corporate acquisitions over the past 20 years. Hindsight is 20/20 but it makes sense that a simpler social network like Snapchat and Instagram would be a threat to Facebook once everyone's grandma got an account. A really interesting counterfactual would be a world were Facebook, Instagram & Snapchat are all competing.

> A really interesting counterfactual would be a world were Facebook, Instagram & Snapchat are all competing.

Obviously, antitrust laws are among the many things I know nothing about, but it still difficult for me to understand how they can allow facebook, instagram and whatsapp to be one corporation.

> it [is] still difficult for me to understand how they can allow facebook, instagram and whatsapp to be one corporation.

With respect to Instagram, it's really not hard to understand - back in 2012 (when Facebook made the acquisition) Instagram had just 50 million users and made no money. It would have been ridiculous for anti-trust authorities anywhere in the world to step in. Remember too that the general consensus among a great many back then was that 1 billion dollars for Instagram was an absurd purchase price for what was perceived as a relatively tiny little start up with a very uncertain future.

While everyone likes to bash Facebook, the growth they have achieved with Instagram since acquiring it is pretty impressive, 50 million to a billion users in 6 or so years, and it's not like there wasn't significant competition along the way from Snapchat etc.

You mean a social network, an image sharing and a messaging app are all the same so couldn't be owned by the same company?

Anti-trust law doesn't prevent any form of consolidation. As a general guideline, the DOJ is only opposed to going from 3 to 2 competing offerings to customers.

Given the existence of countless other social networks, photo sharing websites and messaging apps, it would be hard to justify blocking any of these deals, especially in the case of Instagram which was still a very young and nimble company at the time of the acquisition.

Read the book “Chickenshit”

The Chickenshit Club - "Why don't crooked corporate CEO's go to jail anymore? Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jesse Eisinger uncovers culture of cowardice, incompetence, and corruption in both government and finance."

> Obviously, antitrust laws are among the many things I know nothing about, but it still difficult for me to understand how they can allow facebook, instagram and whatsapp to be one corporation.

Corruption might be the explanation.

It's because anti-trust laws aren't well-equipped to deal with modern monopolies.

the US's legal framework for anti-trust come from the Sherman anti-trust act of 1890 and the Clayton anti-trust act of 1914 (note the dates). The jurisprudence basically holds that being a monopoly isn't illegal per se, but what's illegal is abusing consumers - traditionally the cause of action in anti-trust lawsuits are that a corporation does something anti-competitive to increase prices. Facebook is mostly available at no cost to consumers (or at least, consumers don't have to pay to use the products) and so they avoid anti-trust scrutiny.

To see it in practice, check out [1]. Some Japanese auto part suppliers were acting in an anti-competitive way and what got the DOJ so chuffed was that consumers had to pay more for cars and car parts because of the behavior.

The Yale law journal has a great expose on the tension between our 19th/early-20th century understanding of abusive monopolies and the realities of 21st century commerce [2] and basically the core issue is that anti-trust laws are powerless to stop a company from acquiring the power to become an illegal/abusive monopoly.

The EU has actually been much more skeptical/hostile of the arrangement between Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp , and the best legal thinking on using anti-trust norms to break up big tech comes from the EU. Unfortunately, I don't know much about it and I'll invite any expert to weigh-in.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/japanese-auto-parts-company-p...

[2] https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

Facebook knows how to keep the government happy by just handing the NSA and whoever else all the data they hoover up. So I suspect they can get away with whatever and no one is going to say too much about it. They provide a great service to the powers that be!

People have ridiculed every Facebook acquisition when it was made, but time has constantly proven them right.

Still waiting on that Oculus deal.

It’s coming. Wait till the third generation.

Am waiting, no cynism. I just can't see a business case in that constellation, so I'm eagerly waiting to see what will come out of all of that.

Even assuming that it all goes to waste....it's just $2 Billion. But it never works that way, tax gains, engineers hired, resale value etc...

Don't forget WhatsApp. There is absolutely no escaping Facebook.

At least with WhatsApp they only have my Metadata...

Meanwhile their stock is up 30% since April. Either users don't care and will give up any privacy they have for a reasonably good "free" entertainment, or our Congress can do shit to the behemoth Facebook became.


Users don't care about leaded gasoline either.

> At least with WhatsApp they only have my Metadata...

Only until Facebook decides to weaken or eliminate its end-to-end encryption. It's surprising that feature has lasted this long, since it's so antithetical to Facebook's business model of slurping up every bit of personal data it can.

See this story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17238241

It's likely there will be changes to WhatsApp soon.

e2e was delivered 2016, WhatsApp was acquired in 2014.

> e2e was delivered 2016, WhatsApp was acquired in 2014.

Both WhatsApp founders have left Facebook recently, and they were much more privacy focused than Zuckerberg and Sandberg. My understanding is they protected the WhatsApp team from the culture of the rest of Facebook, but now that they're gone I don't see that continuing in the same way.

> and they were much more privacy focused than Zuckerberg and Sandberg.

And just remember, those were the two guys who thought that transport encryption was too expensive for a messaging app.

They launched e2e encryption after acquisition. There is nothing which suggests it will be weakened. There is now e2e encryption in Messenger as well if you want to enable it.

Presumably because the meta data are quite excessive and telling anyways.

They won’t do that until they have a different app supporting E2E. Why would they voluntarily lose all E2E users to a competitor?

> They won’t do that until they have a different app supporting E2E. Why would they voluntarily lose all E2E users to a competitor?

I would like to be optimistic, but the realist in me thinks the number of users for which end-to-end encryption is a vital feature is vanishingly small.

And maybe all FB needs to do to keep those users is to make end-to-end encryption on WhatsApp opt-in, so they can provide ~~"wonderful new features to you"~~ if you keep it off.

Not sure, but doesn't Messenger support E2E as opt-in?

I assume that is sarcasm, right?

It's unclear if instagram would even be nearly what it is today without facebook, my guess is that both snapchat and twitter would've filled all the holes facebook was able to fill with instagram.

I think the Youtube acquisition beats it.

Are they going to scoop up all future social network players? There are many more to come.

If they see any others as existential threats, yes, all of them. Facebook’s current valuation is $599 billion. Instagram was roughly $1 billion at the time it was acquired.

Facebook could acquire 100 more Instagrams and have every single one of them fail - or even shut them down - without all that much dilution.

(Cisco and EMC from 1990-2010 are successful examples of this strategy. See DataDomain, Isilon, Cerent, and arguably Crescendo for example acquisitions.)

Probably. I loathe Facebook as both a product and company, but I have to give them credit: they're smart and they know what they're doing. They're not going to be caught out easily by the usual "disruption".

Facebook knows the lifecycle of social media networks, and knows that the way to stay in front of the inevitable decay is to watch like a hawk for the New Thing and either buy it (Instagram, WhatsApp) or clone it and stomp it with network effects (Snapchat).

Don't they just have to look out for popular social media apps with large userbases? It's surely not rocket science.

The complicated bit is heading off anti-trust regulators.

There’s lot of popular social media apps now or from before. Most don’t succeed the way Instagram and Whatsapp have. So it’s not as simple as just picking any. Yahoo picked up Tumblr, look how that turned out. Look how Snapchat is doing right now money-wise. Though of course that’s tougher to say since Instagram had a direct effect on hurting Snapchat.

Did anything get better after acquisition by Yahoo pre-Oath? I'm actually fine with trying different things and failing, but my spotty memory is Yahoo batted 0.000, Flickr surviving Yahoo by being acquired by smugmug seems like a moral victory more than anything as a fan of Flickr.

There will be more, but I'm not convinced there will be "many." We seem to be hitting a peak of social networks, even if it's only a local maxima.

I feel like there will be less social networks and more things that accidentally become social networks. Something like reddit. I'm sure there are more examples. Things more organic.

Imgur is a major example.

Either scoop up (IG, WhatsApp, tbh etc...) or crush through imitation (Snap).

Well TBH snap didn't offer a good user experience, hence when IG did it in a slightly more user friendly way they got most of snap's users

Same with vine and videos on ig

Instagram Stories is one of the most addictive application I have ever used.

It obviously replaced Snapchat but also Facebook, Tinder, even WhatsApp. What are you friends up to? Check your friends' stories. Wanna see some beautiful stories? Check some influencers' stories. Wanna tease a party or share fun pictures during a party, only with your friends? Use Instagram Stories. This app is a dream for people in their twenties.

The number of use cases this app created and the engagement it causes (the delay between posting a story and when it is seen by friends is rarely more than a few minutes) is really astonishing. Facebook will likely not die anytime soon, but Instagram is now the app and its acquisition was one of the smartest moves in the history of Facebook. If you want to learn more about the acquisition, I strongly recommend this article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2013/06/kara-swishe...

For me Instagram Stories made Instagram worse :( But that's because I still look at Instagram as an photo sharing app, not social network app. I guess I will need to revise my views sooner or later :(

Of course stories and all the other modifications have made Instagram worse. The same way reality tv made television worse. But people love it and just eat it up.

Damn, I'm glad I'm not on this drug.

I don't know about the states but Instagram is a major promotional tool for cafes and restaurants in Japan. People take photos of their drinks and dishes and share them on Instagram, tagging the cafe and a lot related tags. Meta-accounts with lots of followers then repost those and create buzz for the cafes. Then on the weekends the cafes get swarmed by people who found out about them through Instagram, repeating the cycle.

If you're in a major metro area in Japan and want to find the on-trend coffee joints, check out Instagram.

I don't see this as an issue. Google does it with all of their products.

If you own a flooring company and a cabinet company, you're going to try to convince your flooring customers to buy your cabinets.

I don't see an issue, but I think it's funny how many of IG users STILL don't know they're actually using Facebook.

I'm not sure how many people care. It's like finding out Pepsi owns Aquafina.

"Could I get a water?"

"Is Aquafina OK?"

Sorry, I only drink Dasani

Many don't even realize Facebook is a company.

Why is that funny? Lots of businesses go to great lengths to segment their products and sometimes play them off each other (e.g. Blue Moon pretending to be a craft microbrew despite being produced by MillerCoors).

Not really any different having two jewellery stores opposite each other in a shopping mall giving you the feeling of choice. Only to discover they are owned by the same company.

I saw Shane Robison give a talk about the HP+Compaq merger. [1] He advantage that came from the merger was getting more shelf space in retail stores. Having some influence and/or control of what got displayed in the HP shelfspace and the Compaq shelfspace was considered valuable.

[1] https://www.crunchbase.com/person/shane-robison

Like when there's a Starbucks and a Seattle's Best on opposing corners.

I mean, it's the same company but a different product (aside from the ads which are the real product). IG has pictures that are cute or funny or cool, FB is a sordid wasteland of misinformation, bickering, and unhappiness. I'm ready for IG to devolve into another misinformation machine any day now since that seems like it is really lucrative for FB, but for now I think IG's simplicity and image focused UI filters a lot of the garbage out.

I also don't know I'm "using microchip" with my Atmel or SMSC - and I really don't care either.

Cool... If you really had an issue with how Microchip handled your personal info - would you be lining up to use Atmel?

If you didn't know Atmel was owned by Microchip and they didn't exactly scream that from the rooftops, you don't think that would be a relevant analogy here?

You and others here probably don’t know half of the companies or brands owned by other companies or brands.

One thing I noticed after the most recent FB fallout, was that FB started aggressively promoting ads for IG. Now I guess they are trying to recollect their users now that things have calmed down a bit.

With all the mess that keeps getting added to insta, I would love Twitter to add a basic photos thing that was just the Instagram feed without all the Snapchat rubbish.

Instagram is a good 20% of most Facebook advertiser's account spend already. Not at all insignificant. For young and female targeted products, it's even higher.

A for-profit business is moving levers under its control to increase its profits. Nothing surprises me about this.

Hard to believe a billion people use this nearly an hour a day....don't people have lives anymore? Sad, is what this really is. While there have been times I've used sites like reddit that much, it is a helluva lot different being involved in a dozen ongoing conversations about deep subjects than looking at pictures and saying the equivalent "ooh, nice picture! your cat is so cute." or "that latte art is so super keen" 100 times a day.

Get a life, world.

Already deleted my facebook - not much stopping me from deleting my instagram next. But i'm not a very active user anyway, so i'm not sure if it'll make its way into the few folks i follow.

I don't know why this is getting down-voted because it is relevant to the article. People have had it with the caustic posts on and outright lies about privacy by Facebook so they're moving to Instagram. Facebook appears to mostly have left Instagram alone since acquiring it but now it is getting more involved since the trend appears to indicate that Instagram is becoming the profit center.

But for people who mistrust Facebook, that is more than reason to drop Instagram. The thinking is, "I've seen what Facebook has done to itself. It's only a matter of time before they do the same to Instagram. I might as well get out now and find some better alternative."

The problem will not be solved by you and me deleting Facebook, Instagram or Google. The biggest problem is your friends who share your name and number with these social apps without thinking and without your approval. And you can’t even ask these big social tech companies to delete it. That’s the really scary thing in all this!

Not to mention the times my face shows up in a picture someone posts to Facebook. I'm under no delusion that Facebook actually deleted my account. They know what I look like even though I haven't had an account in years.

I would like to add: the implications of someone adding your personal information unauthorised to these social networks has not been tried legally.

With the GDPR, it's about to be. It will be interesting to follow.

I, for one, am quite proud of Europe for taking steps to protect her citizenry. Hopefully the rest of the world will follow shortly.

I also deleted my Facebook years ago, and wince every time I feel compelled to look at Instagram.

Speaking of dark patterns, few people probably ignore Instagram long enough to notice, but after weeks and weeks the app starts showing you head-fake notifications. They aren't mentions or messages, just 'alerts' that people you know are using Instagram and you should be looking.

that kind of spammy shit would have had me off of it very quickly. but, thankfully i never used it in my life...and never will. if i wanna see cat pictures and latte art or Beyonce's latest plastic surgery updates i can just google it... it all looks the same after the first 5 minutes anyways...who is that bored? my god.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

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