Instagram head questioned about social media addiction

Instagram chief Adam Mosseri testified Wednesday in a high-profile social media case that he thinks there may be problematic use of social media, but he doesn’t think it constitutes an addiction.

“I’m sure I’ve said this, but I think it’s important to distinguish between clinical addiction and problematic use,” said Mosseri, who has repeatedly stated that he is not a medical professional.

Mosseri said that sometimes the use of the word addiction can indicate something more casual, noting that he may have once said he was addicted to an addiction. netflix This is not a true clinical addiction.

“So it’s a personal thing, but yes, I think it’s possible to use Instagram more than you feel good about,” Mosseri said. “Too much is relative, it’s personal.”

Mosseri testified in Los Angeles Superior Court; Here the plaintiff claims that social media platforms MetaYouTube, TikTok, and Snap misled the public about the safety of their apps despite knowing that certain design choices and features caused harmful mental health effects on young users.

Although TikTok and explode Two companies that were initially part of the case are no longer involved in the case after settling with a plaintiff involved in the case.

“The question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a significant factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles,” a Meta spokesperson said.

The LA case centers around a plaintiff listed as “KGM” and her mother, who allege tech companies are designing features like infinite scrolling that lead to addictive behavior and negative mental health issues.

“The evidence will show that he faced many significant, difficult challenges long before using social media,” a spokesperson for Meta said in a statement. he said.

Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier questioned Mosseri about his addiction to social media and some of the choices company executives allegedly made that resulted in negative harm.

When Lanier asked Mosseri if there was such a thing as problematic use of Instagram, Mosseri replied, “I think it depends on the individual.”

Lanier pressed Mosseri on his role as the “decision maker” for Instagram and whether he leans into making profit-making decisions before testing or emphasizes testing products to protect children first.

“We should focus on the protection of minors in general, but I believe that protecting minors in the long term is good for business and profit,” Mosseri said. he said.

The case, which gave opening statements Monday, is one of several this year focusing on the security of social media platforms and what the companies knew about potential dangers to children.

Lanier introduced an exhibit detailing an email exchange in November 2019 between company executives discussing whether to ban digital filters that can alter photos of people’s faces to appear as if they had faces. plastic surgery.

After discussing what would be allowed given the advanced capabilities of today’s makeup, the company decided not to allow any digital effects that would promote plastic surgery, Mosseri said.

In the email chain, which included a subheading that read “PR fever for plastic surgery,” Meta administrators discussed concerns from the press and health experts about whether digital filtering effects could lead to harmful mental health issues.

Meta technology chief Andrew Bosworth said in the email chain that he had briefed CEO Mark Zuckerberg on the plastic surgery digital filter and that the Facebook co-founder “might want to review it before implementation.”

“He’s concerned about whether we have good enough data that this represents real harm,” Bosworth said of Zuckerberg’s view of the project.

Former Meta executive John Hegeman said in another email on the chain that “a blanket ban on things that can’t be done with makeup would limit our ability to be competitive in Asian markets (including India).”

“I would prefer to see us develop a nuanced framework for responsible use that still allows us to create products that people clearly want and intentionally seek out,” Hegeman wrote in the email.

Mosseri said on Wednesday that he interpreted Hegeman’s comments to mean that a blanket ban on the proposed filters would harm the company’s ability to compete in Asian markets, but he thought the former Meta executive was talking about cultural relevance, not money.

He said Meta doesn’t make money from its filters and instead wants to be culturally relevant so people can enjoy the platform.

Lanier then presented an email exchange between Mosseri and Meta policy manager Andy O’Connell; Here, the head of Instagram was asked to choose one of three options before going to Zuckerberg for his executive decision on filters.

The first option involved a temporary ban on plastic surgery filters under current policy, then reevaluating once more accurate health data became available. The option listed “pros” such as reducing welfare concerns and causing no public relations or regulatory risks, but it also had “cons” such as limiting growth.

The second option would lift the ban on plastic surgery filters and eliminate the effects of being recommended to Instagram users. The “cons” of this option still included a considerable risk to well-being.

The third option was to lift the ban; this would have the lowest impact on growth but the highest risk to welfare and the potential for bad media attention.

Mosseri responded to the email that he preferred option 2; Lanier stated that this is a choice that carries a significant health risk.

“I respect your call on this issue and will support it, but I would like to state for the record that I do not think this is the right decision, given the risks,” Margaret Stewart, Facebook’s vice president of product design and responsible innovation, wrote in her response to Mosseri. Stewart supported banning filters.

Mosseri repeatedly said in the courtroom that the company faced a more “focused ban” that included a subset of digital filters.

WRISTWATCH: New Mexico AG Raul Torrez at the Meta hearing.