After years, I made my first Instagram post last week. I got instantly banned (it was a picture of a new bag I bought). Apparently the way to get it back is to jump through some hoops and post a selfie with an OTP. I decided that’s a bit much work and I might as well let them delete my account that only follows a bunch of people I know without ever looking at their pictures.
It's bonkers, and clear how they go about obtaining their data.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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...
Never posted anything. Never liked anything. Never commented. 5 years later I go to login. Account is banned.
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 (IG) account was sold, hacked or swapped.
The only tag was the brand of the bag
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.