Current Events > Instagram now blocking accounts with less than 1K followers from livestreaming

(+) Yeah! (+)

100% convinced this is a ploy from Meta to get people to desperately over-engage with the platform out of FOMO

https://www.engadget.com/apps/instagram-public-accounts-with-less-than-1000-followers-can-no-longer-go-live-133049758.html

Instagram is no longer allowing public accounts to go live if they have less than 1,000 followers. Users have been reporting over the past few days that their accounts aren't eligible for Live broadcast on the app anymore. "We changed the requirements to use this feature," reads the notice that pops up when people try to host a livestream broadcast to their followers. "Only public accounts with 1,000 followers or more will be able to create live videos." Now Meta has confirmed the new eligibility requirement to Engadget.

The company told us that it started implementing the new rule in order to ensure that it's providing the best experience for creators that host Live broadcasts and that it's driving improvements in the feature's overall usage experience. It didn't clarify why Instagram won't be able to provide the best experience if users with below 1,000 followers can livestream, as well.

Meta also told us that the new requirement applies not just to public, but also to private accounts. However, the change has only started rolling out to private accounts, which is likely why its notice states that only public accounts with 1,000 followers or more can go Live for now. That likely means Instagram is killing the ability to do livestreams for up to three close friends only, which was a feature the platform launched in 2024.

It's not that. It's complicated though...

Facebook makes deals with media companies to promote "stars." They have an interest in the bigger stars becoming popular. But if ole Robot streams to 20 people, that's 20 people that could be watching these sponsored streams instead.

Facebook, for the most part, controls how many followers you have as well. For example, if they don't show your stuff in people's feeds, you will lose followers slowly as they think "who is this person?" Giving you followers is a little more straightforward.

It's important to realize these sites aren't just "social media" but rigged carnival games designed to make a profit through influencing and product placement.

I think the general assumption is that this is actually IG's way of preventing random/regular people from livestreaming things like ICE raids and shit.

Robot2600 posted...

It's not that. It's complicated though...

Facebook makes deals with media companies to promote "stars." They have an interest in the bigger stars becoming popular. But if ole Robot streams to 20 people, that's 20 people that could be watching these sponsored streams instead.

Facebook, for the most part, controls how many followers you have as well. For example, if they don't show your stuff in people's feeds, you will lose followers slowly as they think "who is this person?" Giving you followers is a little more straightforward.

It's important to realize these sites aren't just "social media" but rigged carnival games designed to make a profit through influencing and product placement.

It's crazy to look back at the old Instragram with its feed. Just photos from the accounts you follow all lined up in chronological order. Nothing else.

You could get to the end and and there would be nothing more to see. Fun times.

I wouldn't assume that, that's just a bonus for them. All the other platforms do this except Twitch, and it's part of the push to support only big and famous content creators (who, mostly like, have an agent and a media management company that is probably owned by meta in the end).

Twitch would do it if they could. Twitch let's you go live, but they bury your stream under so much crap that no one can find you.

Bio1590 posted...

I think the general assumption is that this is actually IG's way of preventing random/regular people from livestreaming things like ICE raids and shit.

That was my first thought as well.

You'd think this would just reduce their engagement but...

HojoojoH_2 posted...

It's crazy to look back at the old Instragram with its feed. Just photos from the accounts you follow all lined up in chronological order. Nothing else.

You could get to the end and and there would be nothing more to see. Fun times.

It was really good back then. I don't know what it's turned into now, but I want no part of it.

The pictures you want to see (that friends post) stay up for one view, and then you get an endless flood of adverts plus people doing random hobby shit.

They made it unusable and filled it with other people's trash. Haven't bothered with it for years now.

IG was better when everything wasnt an ad for something. 4:3 photos of family get togethers, vacation photos, maybe a thirst trap here and there. That was peak IG. Now every post is someone trying to sell you some shit.

02fran posted...

You'd think this would just reduce their engagement but...

It's ok to reduce engagement as long as the engagement is redirected to things that make more money

Eh, I only use Instagram to keep up with my favourite idol groups. My whole feed is filled with it.

What was the limit before? 100? My roommate joined insta like 4 months ago and a limit to live stream was in place at the time soo..this isn't new maybe?

Deleting instagram was the best decision I've made on the internet in years. There's just an entire chasm of stuff I can fill my brain with that's not this nonsense.

I didn't even know people livestream on instagram.

It should block people OVER 1000 viewers from livestreaming.

Its probably a good thing.

It keeps young kids from streaming who knows what.

Banned people wont be able to stream.

Weirdos who just want to grift cant suddenly set up shop and immediately go online.

Shit like this makes me so glad that I know how to use social media properly. Staying in touch with friends, looking at girls and memes, etc. You know.. using it for fun.

Maybe you could parent your kid instead of having the internet do it for you?

Insanely stupid.

At least I dont go live often on my account. Im only a little over halfway there

Most social media websites have minimum requirements for live streaming

Its about profits. Live streaming costs the service provider way more in bandwidth costs than static photos. The 1,000 minimum ensures theres enough viewership to make them money.

_____Cait posted...

Its probably a good thing.

It keeps young kids from streaming who knows what.

Banned people wont be able to stream.

Weirdos who just want to grift cant suddenly set up shop and immediately go online.

Putting up a huge barrier like this is not because of the children or weirdo grifters. It never is

A lot of people I know personally that I follow would just go on live and chill or play music or something, and they just cant anymore