I don't know if there is such legislation in existence; maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I guess my point is that they, at first glance, have absolutely no way of knowing you're joking (regardless of whether you have a smile on your face) and I highly doubt they're going to take that chance just because they might have a good sense of humour.

While I'm sure Australian airport security are a lot more laid back than say, the TSA, I highly doubt they'd take that kind of comment lightly. Sure, they might get that you're joking but they'd still be required to take you in for some serious questioning.

A few months ago I had a domestic flight in Australia, the first time I'd flown in years. Amusingly, I get swabbed for explosives by security. Afterwards, sitting around waiting for my flight I came very, very close to making a Facebook status a long the lines of "Just got swabbed for explosives at the airport, lucky I left my C4 at home". I'm glad I was smart enough not to.

They're not stupid enough to put ads everywhere though. If they were, they would've done it already. They would understand why people use their site more than anyone else does. Also, Facebook isn't used because it's cool, it might have been when it first started, but it's become a necessity for hundreds of millions of people that don't just use it for social status (if Facebook ever achieved that for individuals), they use it to connect and share with friends (some more than they do with any other medium, i.e mobile phones, email). To undo that kind of relationship would be an extremely difficult task and would take a major fuck up on Facebook's end to achieve it. Anyone who believes that Facebook is going to turn out like the next Myspace has to remember one thing - it's NOT Myspace in the slightest.

That's cute.

I agree with your first sentiment.

As for insulting 800+ million people because they happen to use a website that you don't like? Stop being a pretentious knob and quit worrying about things you apparently don't care for.

Why this comment was deemed "Flamebait" is beyond me. It was a legitimate question!

Ah, yep, gotcha. I remember when they rolled out that feature and I also managed to change it back via certain settings. I didn't realise they'd made it a permanent feature now though. Spewin'!

It's not a valid point in the slightest. He's suggesting that just because he hasn't heard of the service then no one should bother reading about it regardless of whether they're interested or not. I don't give a shit if he doesn't know about it as it literally adds nothing to the conversation.

Do you have an example of this? I've never had this problem, I don't think. Are you talking about the "Sort" function for the news feed where it's automatically set to "Top Stories" (posts that have been deemed most popular by how many comments/likes they attract), but users have to manually set it to "Most Recent" in that it displays all posts in chronological order regardless of popularity?

Also the fact that he's been living in Singapore for the past two years adds strength to his defense.

How very interesting, please do go on.

Even so, I'd bet that it would be a hard task to migrate 30 million people when a lot of them have already invested so much time into the app (I'm sure some would have hundreds, if not thousands, of photos tied to their account). Also, a lot of celebrities use Instagram which definitely has a lot of pulling power for certain groups of people (much like Twitter).

Is Instagram worth $1 billion? I'd say definitely not, but I can understand why he'd rather buy them out instead of creating a similar app.

You have no idea what kind of person the term "hipster" refers to, do you?

Cash and shares. I'm pretty sure the split has been kept private though.