Instagram Chief’s Testimony on Social Media Addiction
Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, testified in a Los Angeles court on Wednesday. He acknowledged the existence of “problematic” social media use but maintained that he doesn’t consider it a clinical addiction.
During the proceedings, Mosseri addressed allegations suggesting that Meta, the parent company of Instagram, misled the public regarding the safety of its platforms. He clarified the difference between colloquial use of the term “addiction” and its clinical definition, emphasizing the need for distinction. “I’ve said this before, but it’s important to differentiate clinical addiction from problematic use,” he noted, repeatedly mentioning his lack of medical credentials. He remarked that people often use the term casually, such as asserting they’re “addicted” to binge-watching shows, but this should not equate to a true clinical addiction.
Mosseri did confess that excessive social media use can indeed be concerning. “This is a personal perspective, but I think there’s a chance that one might spend more time on Instagram than they realize,” he stated. He added that the concept of “too much” is subjective and personal.
The case itself revolves around claims that Meta, along with YouTube, TikTok, and Snap, misled users about the safety of their apps while being aware that specific features caused mental health issues in young people. TikTok and Snap were originally part of the lawsuit but have since settled.
The plaintiffs include a person identified as KGM and his mother, who argue that features like infinite scrolling have led to addictive tendencies and mental health challenges. A Meta spokesperson commented that the jury has to consider whether Instagram significantly contributed to the plaintiff’s mental health struggles, insisting there were already various difficulties faced before social media usage began.
In his questioning of Mosseri, plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier highlighted his decision-making role, particularly the balance between profit and protecting minors. “We should generally prioritize the safety of minors, but I believe that doing so is ultimately beneficial for both business and profit,” Mosseri replied.
A considerable portion of the discussion was about Instagram’s approach to digital filters related to plastic surgery. Lanier referenced an email from November 2019, which revealed that Meta executives debated banning such filters due to potential mental health ramifications. The emails showcased concerns over competitive implications as well.
Andrew Bosworth, who oversees technology at Meta, communicated with CEO Mark Zuckerberg regarding these filters. He expressed uncertainty over whether there was enough evidence to prove these filters inflicted harm.
John Hegeman, a former Meta executive, raised concerns through email about the impact of a strict ban, suggesting it could hinder Meta’s competitiveness in Asian markets, including India. He advocated for a more balanced approach rather than a complete prohibition.
Mosseri received an email with three filter options. One suggested a temporary ban that could limit growth, another proposed lifting the ban but removing the filter from recommendations, which posed health risks, and the last option allowed a complete lift of the ban, presenting the highest risks but least impact on growth.
He indicated a preference for the second option, but Meta executive Margaret Stewart countered, expressing her disagreement and advocating for a total ban on the filters.
Throughout his testimony, Mosseri indicated that Meta eventually enforced a stricter ban affecting several digital filters. When asked during cross-examination about these filters, he explained they are used by a limited number of users for creative expression and do not bring in revenue. “We aim to facilitate self-expression, yet our revenue is mainly derived from ad exposure on Instagram,” he stated. “We have no data to suggest that filter usage boosts content engagement or advertising, so this isn’t a revenue-based decision.”
