Interesting challenge! I often find myself deferring to experts (like scientists) especially for complex issues that I don't have personal expertise with... doing this exercise I realized I would also struggle to convincingly defend many other "true" scientific phenomena (evolution, global warming, etc.). I wonder what the balance is between: 1. being individually capable of arguing one side of a debate and 2. outsourcing that argument by leaning on smart, respected thinkers?
So true- especially with people I'm less close to. When taking to co-workers/not-super-close friends about contentious issues (politics), I'm very cognizant of "keeping the peace" in our conversation and relationship. But when discussing these same issues with my close friends/family I'm very interested in debating and exposing every nuance of our disagreements. I know some folks are much more comfortable with casual disagreement, and I'm always envious of them!
But nothing “just is,” especially Instagram. Instagram isn't designed to be a neutral technology, like electricity or computer code. It's an intentionally crafted experience, with an impact on its users that is not inevitable, but is the product of a series of choices by its makers about how to shape behavior. Instagram trained its users on likes and follows, but that wasn't enough to create the emotional attachment users have to the product today. They also thought about their users as individuals, through the careful curation of an editorial strategy, and partnerships with top accounts. Instagram's team is expert at amplifying “the good.”
By the beginning of 2012, a longtime Twitter employee named Elad Gil took over Twitter's corporate strategy and M&A. He resurfaced the idea of an Instagram acquisition. Important people were joining the app, and things were starting to happen there, he explained in a presentation on his strategy for the quarter.
Antitrust law was not written for modern acquisitions like Instagram. A traditional monopoly was a company with such a hold on its industry that it harmed others by fixing prices or controlling a supply chain. Facebook and Instagram presented no obvious consumer harm because their products were free to use, as long as people were willing to give up their data to the network.
The market sounded crowded the way Facebook described it. The company said there were plenty of other apps like Instagram, including Path, Flickr, Camera+, and Pixable. So the U.K. regulators said they were convinced that allowing the acquisition wouldn't remove competition from the market
The Instagram team was too small to have codified what their values were, but now, confronted with Facebook's hacker culture, they knew what they weren't.
Instagram wanted things to be carefully considered and designed before they were released to people. Humans, not numbers. Artists, photographers, and designers, not DAUs, the Facebook term for “daily active users.”
They didn't want to limit people to their likes and dislikes; they wanted to introduce them to things they'd never seen before
Instagram was told that the recipe for growth at Facebook-sending notifications and reminder emails, clearing sign-up hurdles, understanding the data, playing defense-was the most important thing to learn if they wanted the app to be truly important one day.
It was also the thing that, if implemented badly, could completely kill the good vibes Instagram had going with its community.