Last week, uproar was heard from across the rooftops as people discovered that Instagram had again copied Snapchat by allowing its users to post filters on their Stories. Outrage from the blatant replication of one of Snapchat’s primary claims to fame has the internet up in arms. Our first reaction mirrored the masses—now we have to page through several different apps to find what celebrity’s posting my friends are talking about! How dare they steal another company’s idea!

So it’s time to grab our torches and pitchforks at Instagram over this latest case of social media duplication, right? Sort of. Instagram does have its own separate leadership, but it is an entity of Facebook. Over the years, Facebook has essentially been the Ditto Pokémon of social media by observing what works, buying out clones, and trying their own interpretations.

Truth be told, it’s been happening right underneath our noses. Rewind back to Myspace, which debuted more than a decade ago (feel old yet?). In its heyday, Myspace was the most popular social networking site in the world, even once surpassing Google as the most popular website in the US. However, its tools of trade were easily mimicked and improved on, eventually being surpassed by the future social media monopoly emperor Facebook in 2008. Nowadays, Facebook is used by 89% of internet users, with their sidekick Instagram in second place at 32%.

Facebook took several unsuccessful stabs at copying Snapchat before, too. There was Poke in 2012, which was a family-friendly Snapchat clone of during Snapchat’s dirty origins. Then we had Slingshot in 2014, requiring users to respond with a photo before they could open the ones they’ve received. Subsidiary Instagram attempted Bolt in 2014. Think of a Snapchat that would be sent to all of your (at max) 20 friends. 2015 gave us One-Hour Messages, which didn’t even last as long as me typing this sentence about it. Honorable mention to the still-used temporary profile pictures we got later that year, which promote users’ support for certain events. Facebook again tried two Snapchat-similar updates to its flagship website last year, allowing posts to only appear in the news feed and for updates that only lasted a full day. Then in August of last year, Instagram launched Stories, so similar to Snapchat’s that it didn’t even bother to change the name. That brings us to a few days ago, when those same blasted Stories got filters.

So then pitchfork party at Facebook’s place? Realistically, no. I can finally make use of my two severely overvalued business degrees to professionally explain that it makes practical sense for a company to copy the successful models of their competitors. More users? Viewers staying longer per visit? More money. In fact, other industries have been playing copycat since long before our times, for better and for worse. Think of Jonas Salk refusing to patent the vaccine for Polio so the entire world could all get their hands on it contrasted to the infamous, “Most Hated Man in America,” Martin Shrleki, who price-gouged a cancer medication after he acquired its patent).

Then how should we feel about this treacherous mimicry happening around us today? I’m one of you guys; I want us to get angry at something because we get memes out of it. But we can’t be upset at all the copying that businesses do around is. In truth, it can be a driving force for companies to differentiate amongst features that work instead of forcing us to learn completely new things. Who wants to waste energy on grasping how new apps work when we’re wasting time at work online, anyway? Plus if it takes the eye off of less-familiar interfaces, then maybe my 14-year-old sister won’t be able to shame me over not knowing what Musical.ly is anymore. But regardless, if we really need to get angry at the copying going on in the world today, let’s just agree to settle on dudes who think wearing rompers is okay.