I don't disagree that influencers exist on pretty much all large social networks nowadays, and that some people make a living off of this. I've seen it firsthand with people I know who do this, and it's not as far-fetched as some of the other commenters here suggest. But I'd like to point out a few things:
- As mentioned in the article, I believe Snapchat is trying to differentiate itself from other social networks that have these almost spam like influencers who constantly plug the companies that pay them. I see this as a good move on Snapchat's part. For the influencers themselves: over time people start to notice that many of your posts are simply plugs, and you become less interesting.
- I'm sure Snapchat would much rather see that money (the money being paid to these influencers for product placement) go to them in the form of real advertisements, rather than to the influencers. By supporting them with additional features/tools to measure engagement and connect with followers, they would essentially be justifying this activity.
- As someone who uses Snapchat daily, and knowing hundreds of others who do as well (I'm a college student), I don't believe that influencers are as big or important on Snapchat as they are on other social networks. The majority of content people come to Snapchat to see are created by their friends. Hypothetically, if all of the influencers disappeared off of Snapchat, I don't think it would have very much of an impact on Snapchat's users.
- Influencers primarily only use Stories on Snapchat to entertain their followers, which is just one part of Snapchat. There are still 1:1 and group chat Snaps that are sent amongst friends. Influencers by a large majority don't use the latter two features to interact with their followers. 1:1 and group chat Snaps between friends are still very heavily used features of Snapchat.
- As another commenter mentioned, Snapchat does not have a discover/explore section like Instagram and other social networks do. This makes it harder for influencers to gain new followers on Snapchat who don't know them already. Because of this, I don't see Snapchat as being the right place for influencers to start out with.
I think this article overestimates the importance of influencers on Snapchat. Yes, what is said in the article could very well be true, that influencers are upset that Snapchat isn't giving them the time of day. But I don't see this as a bad thing, or as something that is going to have any impact on Snapchat as a whole. The suggestion that the author makes about this possibly being problematic for Snapchat as it was for Vine is simply not the case. Vine was the perfect example of over-reliance on influencers and their content to keep Vine alive. Just my two cents.
After reading a little more, it looks like they're capping any video streams they can detect on their network at 1.5Mbps, and not attempting to re-encode anything.
I'm curious to know how they are planning on doing this from a technical standpoint. I can understand them throttling video streaming for their own services (such as the U-Verse app), but to do it for other services? I also can't imagine that the processing power required to do this on-the-fly is trivial.
Copied this from another comment of mine on this post, but it answers part of your question. From the FCC fact sheet[0] on the decision:
> The Order prohibits “take-it-or-leave-it” offers, meaning that an ISP can’t refuse to serve customers who don’t consent to the use and sharing of their information for commercial purposes.
So at least they can't cut you off entirely if you don't consent/opt-in. The fact sheet also touches on the "pay for privacy" issue:
> Recognizing that so-called “pay for privacy” offerings raise unique considerations, the rules require heightened disclosure for plans that provide discounts or other incentives in exchange for a customer’s express affirmative consent to the use and sharing of their personal information. The Commission will determine on a case-by-case basis the legitimacy of programs that relate service price to privacy protections. Consumers should not be forced to choose between paying inflated prices and maintaining their privacy.
Not an outright ban on discounting service for opt'ing-in, but looks like they're leaning towards not allowing something like that.
I was able to find an answer to at least part of this question in the FCC fact sheet[0] on the decision.
> The Order prohibits “take-it-or-leave-it” offers, meaning that an ISP can’t refuse to serve customers who
don’t consent to the use and sharing of their information for commercial purposes.
So at least they can't cut you off entirely if you don't consent/opt-in.
Promissory Note: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040792/000121390018...
8-K Filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040792/000121390018...