I think the dormant accounts problem is legit though - I've lost count how many "dead" accounts I've seen on both my FB and IG feed, that have suddenly become hi-jacked, and start spamming stuff.

Yeah, but in that case it would not be a single picture. And apparently their detection system on the FB side is incapable of blocking new accounts that instantly start friending hundreds of completely unrelated people and posting porn, something that should be pretty easy to detect.

In some circumstances, Facebook's app will randomly block you from certain sub-features and request an ear-to-ear scan of your face to unblock them.

It's bonkers, and clear how they go about obtaining their data.

And the funny part is their metrics will count you as a “spammer” so it will positive-feedback-loop into even less stringent signals.

If you attempt to use a credit card that you haven't used in years, the bank will similarly ask you to verify your identity. I don't think it's weird that unused valuable accounts need re-identification when you start to use them again.

I don't mind anti-spam measures in cases which are common spam techniques. Hijacking unused accounts is common enough to warrant an approach like this.

But instagram is not a bank. I understand not wanting yet another company to have my photo (which nowadays is pretty much knowing who you are) + phone number. Plus it shouldn't require personal identification to post a photo online, especially given how easy it has became to filter out illegal content automatically.

Both sides are reasonable, a common form of spam uses hacked accounts that have grown organically, the normal way, and have then been abandoned. Because they have been used the normal way they are ranked higher than accounts created by bots. So it isn’t that strange that the account is flagged if it suddenly starts posting and the first post is some product.

It’s also reasonable not to want to provide Instagram not to have too much information because after all it is Meta, however it’s debatable whether sharing a photo with a photo sharing service is too much information.

> > I might as well let them delete my account that only follows a bunch of people I know without ever looking at their pictures.

> Both sides are reasonable, a common form of spam uses hacked accounts that have grown organically, the normal way, and have then been abandoned.

That does not seem to be the case here.

When it comes to money, sure, take caution. When it comes to a dozen-or-so followers+followees, abandoned a decade ago with hardly any posts... congratulations, your marketing efforts or network effects were successful and they're back. Now stop trying to steal their personal data under the guise of "security".

If you must, feel free to make a password recovery via their emergency mail or something, but don't try to steal personal data.

If you want to complain, complain about Meta abusing recovery mechanisms for spam.

The rest just doesn’t work; the accounts get hacked using the recovery mechanism because the email accounts get hacked or expire and they get used for spam.

Posting to Instagram really isn't the same as posting a photo to the internet in general though. That for-profit business is running the software, hosting the servers, and writing their own terms of service, they can block what they want at that point.

The real fundamental change after the dot om bubble was that the open web effectively died and was replaced with a handful of walled gardens. If you have your own site and post pictures to it there are very few that can stop you, posting to Instagram and you're effectively politely requesting a company to take rights to your photo and host or online if they would be so kind.

This. You're putting yourself at the mercy of these companies, and they have no mercy.

Having dealt with this professionally in the past, this reads like arm-chair engineering. Someone whose never had to deal with this for real on any scale in the same context.

> But instagram is not a bank.

Doesn't matter. At all.

> Plus it shouldn't require personal identification to post a photo online

Technically, it doesn't.

> especially given how easy it has became to filter out illegal content automatically.

This is wrong on so many levels. The picture doesn't have to be illegal for Instagram to want to ensure you account wasn't taken over. An old account, suddenly posting pictures, even legal ones, might be someone trying to scam someone.

Just so much wrong with this comment.

Then please explain my wrongness levels. Apart from data grab, what is the issue? Could company be accountable if somebody logged in with correct username and password and posted legal pictures? Because if it doesn't matter if it's bank or not, my bank clearly states that it is not accountable in such scenario.

Wait so if you have a "backup" card in case of emergency, the chances are it'll fail anyway? I kinda hate this stuff where we have to guess at how some company's internal mystery processes work to actually use their service :-/

I have this problem all the time with the HSA card (or did until i changed providers)

I would rarely use it, but then I would try to pay for something with it and it would be declined, when I called they always said it was "suspended due to inactivity"

So Yogi Berra works in the security department, not letting you use your card because you never use your card. I love the self-reinforcing nature of it.

That's particularly egregious—what percentage of people with an HSA or similar is likely to be spending money from it more than once every few months??

If you have a periodic prescription, then that may require the HSA every time you pick up the prescription.

Yes, if you want to have a "backup" card make sure you use it somewhat regularly.

So for example, a backup card you use for gas only, or a store-branded Mastercard that you only usually use at that store.

You still run the risk of a block, but it's reduced.

Yes but it is not hard to get it back - you have to contact the bank

In emergency you need to contact your bank.

I have had my card declined several times Once on travel to USA - I probably should have told them before - in this case I had to phone them an international call and it was immediately reinstated. They also denied a payment when it was in a place accross the country from my normal use, which wa good as it was not me trying to use it.

Basically if your spending is abnormal - e.g. in a different place or for a large amount then you might have to confirm the payment. The benefit is the bank is able to stop more fraud.

> the bank will similarly ask you to verify your identity

I doubt that. The bank will either cancel my account long before that, or it will work.

> Hijacking unused accounts is common enough

Ah, yes, for all my 20 or 30 followers, can’t have them see a single image, and of course, the hijackers also hijack the computer those accounts are from, so the IP belongs to the same entity it always did.

Credit card companies run sophisticated anti-fraud operations in real time. Visa "analyzes more than 500 unique risk attributes" the moment you attempt to make a purchase with a card.

They make decisions in milliseconds on each purchase to determine whether it might be fraud. This includes looking at past purchase history to see if this transaction is unusual.[1]

[1] https://usa.visa.com/visa-everywhere/security/outsmarting-fr...

This looks like you copy and pasted an ad from somewhere. Anyone who has used a credit card for a while knows their 'anti fraud' is not very sophisticated and anyone who has used a computer should know that whatever they do happens 'in milliseconds'.

There's a difference between a bank's threat model and a social media company's.

Several years ago I created an account there and it was banned before I even logged in. I appealed but never heard anything. I never figured out why was it was banned. I couldn’t find anything offensive in the name. At least, not in English (the only language I know).

I signed up on Instagram just after Facebook bought it. Before the accounts merged.

Never posted anything. Never liked anything. Never commented. 5 years later I go to login. Account is banned.

Did you use any tags in your post? And which tags if you did? Keep in mind that other users can report. If your bag appears in my timeline by misusing a tag I'm subscribed to it's an insta-report because man you can't imagine how many spammers there are pushing dropshipped goods from China.

And even if no one reported you if you don't have 2fa etc I'd say it's reasonable for FB to assume your account was sold, hacked or swapped.

Not sure about IG, but my FB account has a yubikey.

The only tag was the brand of the bag

I see, if IG is linked to FB login then I guess that's bad and/or broken on their part. Because it implies you log in via FB login I suppose? (I don't connect my account)

> Because it implies you log in via FB login I suppose? (I don't connect my account)

I have no idea, and I can’t check any more :D

I have not had to login since I last reinstalled my computer last year, the session simply continued.