It’s worth keeping in mind that 16 hours was their single highest day of use ever, not their typical daily use.
I’m sure I’ve spent 16 hours on Netflix or League of Legends in a 24 hour period before, yet my median daily usage is 0 hours, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to describe my usage as an addition either.
I’m not saying people don’t get addicted to social media, they do, but in this particular case I think his description of problematic is adequate, and this headline is unnecessarily confrontational.
Now do “Mosseri said he did not think it was possible to say how much Instagram use was too much.”
The guy doesn’t have a red line when it comes to children. That’s self serving and dangerous. (It’s also against a mounting pile of evidence, much of which Facebook has tried to lie about.)
I’m not defending him at all, but why does it matter what Mosseri thinks? It doesn’t surprise me at all that [tobacco executive/drug dealer/social media executive] is downplaying their negative effects on society.
Isn’t it up to the parents to limit social media use?
> why does it matter what Mosseri thinks? It doesn’t surprise me at all that [tobacco executive/drug dealer/social media executive] is downplaying their negative effects on society
It might not surprise me. But if Philip Morris started arguing nicotine isn't addictive, I'd assume they're no longer able to run their organisation without increased public oversight.
> Isn’t it up to the parents to limit social media use?
Sure. One way parents can do that is by encouraging their represenatatives to pass laws to protect their children.
> I’m not defending him, I’m just being realistic here
The term is over-used, but this is actual victim blaming. Nobody is surprised when a serial killer serial kills. But if a bystanders starts then arguing that we shouldn't be surprised at that, and that the victims shouldn't have gone into a neighbourhood with a serial killer, they're just being realistic...they're defending the serial killer. That's what their lawyer would be expected to argue. (It's literally what Mosseri and his supporters are saying.)
But you aren't being realistic, you're shifting blame.
Let's play a little game of replacement to see how we feel. Suppose he is selling cigarettes, since you made the comparison. He's targeting children and teens for marketing and making it difficult for parents to detect when their kids smoke; after all, Instagram has no smell.
Do your feelings remain the same?
Do your feelings remain the same if you look back at the history of the tobacco industry, recognize they also targeted teens because teen smokers were far more likely to become lifelong users? When you realize that effective change didn't happen until actual regulation came into place along with vocal public discussion?
Do your feelings remain the same when you recognize that teens are human beings who have their own autonomy? That parents cannot watch them at all times NOR should they? We transition teens into having greater autonomy and independence. The only way your "it's up to the parents" claim actually works is with helicopter parenting and where they go from 0 autonomy when they are 17 years and 364 days old to complete autonomy the next day.
You don't sound very realistic.
You sound like you're dismissive of the parents. You sound dismissive of the very thing you claim to advocate for. Realistically parents try to solve things by themselves, like most people. Then they turn to peers and family for help. Then they turn to local communities. There is a natural escalation of these things. That's the reality most people live in. Maybe that's not your reality, but it is that of most people. Are you really surprised that people have to escalate and take collective action? Otherwise it's a million battles of one set of parents vs a multitrillion dollar organization with supercomputers and experts on psychology and addiction. I'm just being realistic here, but it seems to me that it is more effective to combine forces, to form a coalition.
I could maybe be more amenable to considering his opinion if his product wasn't designed to elicit this kind of behavior in users. Whether 16 hours specifically is the norm or just an extreme outlier, it is still the desired outcome of every decision that goes into engineering and building Instagram.
eating 20 twinkies a day isn't necessarily the norm but twinkies have been formulated to make you want to eat them.
Considering teenagers should get more than 8hrs of sleep, 16 hours means they're losing sleep because they spent more than their waking hours on a single thing...
Ah yes, my high school years, go to sleep at 1 ~ 2 AM wake up at 5 AM in order to get ready for high school. There was no instagram, insomnia was still terrible. Teens need a lot of sleep time, but I feel like I was way more resilient on less sleep. Compared to now where I can barely function without at least 7 hours of sleep.
> "I'm sure I've said that I've been addicted to a Netflix show when I binged it really late one night, but I don't think it's the same thing as clinical addiction."
Tobacco defense. He is defending himself in a trial, is a very biased opinion.
> Familial links to lung cancer manifestation first appeared in the literature in the 1960s when siblings were found to have an increase in lung cancer mortality. ... The first published piece of literature attributing cigarette smoking to the growing incidence of lung cancer was in 1912 ... Tobacco companies enlisted the medical and nursing professions to promote the safety of their products in their advertising materials
Stop listening to billionaires and CEOs that profit the most from the damage that their business do to society. They lie for money, as simple as that.
Technically correct. We can't call every compulsive behaviour "addiction". Using a social app for 16 hours a day is a very serious problem and requires treatment. But it's not addiction in the same sense that other commonly-recognised addictions to substance and even behaviours are.
I'd call every enjoyment that isn't practiced as a ritual an addiction, and healthy rituals should not take up more than a fraction of the available time.
With 16 hours of daily use (and 8 hours of sleep per day) I wouldn't contrast the batched consumption here on an hours/day-basis, but on a days/year-basis, like going on a trip, a festival etc. Since that basically results in all the days available each year here, it isn't really a practiced ritual anymore, but a complete lifestyle.
[assuming you work for Meta or a social media company] in theory (and not that debatable IMHO) if the net contribution to society on balance is negative?
Do you really believe 16 hours of use daily is not indicative of an addiction? It deserves a headline as it is is a controversial statement that aims to minimise criticism against social media platforms and thus needs to be challenged / debated in society. If social media addiction is not treated as a social problem, the people will not pressure the government to regulate it. That is why social media platforms are claiming that it is only (a personal) problem (of some individual) if some use it for 16 hours while others suggest that it has become a societal problem because its users are now addicts. Social problems needs political solutions to address, and in this case one of the suggested ways is government intervention (through regulations).
Sure, if you want to to be technical and pedantic about it, everything is only a "problem" until clearly diagnosed by an expert! (See Behavioural addictions: What are the signs of addiction? - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/6407-addictio... ).
Take meth for example, if someone can use it for only one hour a day is it a problem?
Who and what in your life is 16 hours of Instagram taking you away from?
Instagram is garbage by the way for any Meta people in this thread. I’m tired of not seeing anyone I follow because you’re putting ads and viral videos I don’t give a fuck about in front of me instead. No wonder it wastes 16 hours, scrolling through shit trying to find something from someone or something you follow.
Your app is literally useless for communicating or keeping up with anyone I follow.
Facebook died when it lost interest in being Facebook and wanted to become TikTok.
Instagram died when it lost interest in being Instagram and wanted to become TikTok.
Your products and company should be banned, and everyone on your board belongs in jail.
> Adam Mosseri, who has led Instagram for eight years
This is the light of moral clarity in Mountain View that champions Instagram for Kids [1].
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/12/08/1062576576/instagrams-ceo-ada...
It’s worth keeping in mind that 16 hours was their single highest day of use ever, not their typical daily use.
I’m sure I’ve spent 16 hours on Netflix or League of Legends in a 24 hour period before, yet my median daily usage is 0 hours, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to describe my usage as an addition either.
I’m not saying people don’t get addicted to social media, they do, but in this particular case I think his description of problematic is adequate, and this headline is unnecessarily confrontational.
Now do “Mosseri said he did not think it was possible to say how much Instagram use was too much.”
The guy doesn’t have a red line when it comes to children. That’s self serving and dangerous. (It’s also against a mounting pile of evidence, much of which Facebook has tried to lie about.)
I’m not defending him at all, but why does it matter what Mosseri thinks? It doesn’t surprise me at all that [tobacco executive/drug dealer/social media executive] is downplaying their negative effects on society.
Isn’t it up to the parents to limit social media use?
> why does it matter what Mosseri thinks? It doesn’t surprise me at all that [tobacco executive/drug dealer/social media executive] is downplaying their negative effects on society
It might not surprise me. But if Philip Morris started arguing nicotine isn't addictive, I'd assume they're no longer able to run their organisation without increased public oversight.
> Isn’t it up to the parents to limit social media use?
Sure. One way parents can do that is by encouraging their represenatatives to pass laws to protect their children.
>Isn’t it up to the parents to limit social media use?
That was the argument tobacco companies used, and the courts ruled against them, which is why it matters quite a bit what Mosseri thinks.
You just engaged in deflection and whataboutism on his behalf, but you aren't defending him?
It really seems like you're defending him.
I mean, do you expect him to be honest about his bad behavior when he makes millions of dollars? I’m not defending him, I’m just being realistic here
> I’m not defending him, I’m just being realistic here
The term is over-used, but this is actual victim blaming. Nobody is surprised when a serial killer serial kills. But if a bystanders starts then arguing that we shouldn't be surprised at that, and that the victims shouldn't have gone into a neighbourhood with a serial killer, they're just being realistic...they're defending the serial killer. That's what their lawyer would be expected to argue. (It's literally what Mosseri and his supporters are saying.)
But you aren't being realistic, you're shifting blame.
Let's play a little game of replacement to see how we feel. Suppose he is selling cigarettes, since you made the comparison. He's targeting children and teens for marketing and making it difficult for parents to detect when their kids smoke; after all, Instagram has no smell.
Do your feelings remain the same?
Do your feelings remain the same if you look back at the history of the tobacco industry, recognize they also targeted teens because teen smokers were far more likely to become lifelong users? When you realize that effective change didn't happen until actual regulation came into place along with vocal public discussion?
Do your feelings remain the same when you recognize that teens are human beings who have their own autonomy? That parents cannot watch them at all times NOR should they? We transition teens into having greater autonomy and independence. The only way your "it's up to the parents" claim actually works is with helicopter parenting and where they go from 0 autonomy when they are 17 years and 364 days old to complete autonomy the next day.
You don't sound very realistic.
You sound like you're dismissive of the parents. You sound dismissive of the very thing you claim to advocate for. Realistically parents try to solve things by themselves, like most people. Then they turn to peers and family for help. Then they turn to local communities. There is a natural escalation of these things. That's the reality most people live in. Maybe that's not your reality, but it is that of most people. Are you really surprised that people have to escalate and take collective action? Otherwise it's a million battles of one set of parents vs a multitrillion dollar organization with supercomputers and experts on psychology and addiction. I'm just being realistic here, but it seems to me that it is more effective to combine forces, to form a coalition.
>> I’m sure I’ve spent 16 hours on Netflix or League of Legends in a 24 hour period before
I'm curious if you had planned or intended to spend 16 hours doing it on these days? Or did you simply find it very difficult to stop?
I could maybe be more amenable to considering his opinion if his product wasn't designed to elicit this kind of behavior in users. Whether 16 hours specifically is the norm or just an extreme outlier, it is still the desired outcome of every decision that goes into engineering and building Instagram.
eating 20 twinkies a day isn't necessarily the norm but twinkies have been formulated to make you want to eat them.
It’s good to have a definition in place before a discussion.
People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences.
This is from the American Society of Addiction Medicine.
You can do your own test if this matches watching short videos extensively.
https://www.asam.org/quality-care/definition-of-addiction
IMO we are way past beyond the point where these definitions are necessary. The consensus is that social media sites are objectively mentally harmful
Considering teenagers should get more than 8hrs of sleep, 16 hours means they're losing sleep because they spent more than their waking hours on a single thing...
Ah yes, my high school years, go to sleep at 1 ~ 2 AM wake up at 5 AM in order to get ready for high school. There was no instagram, insomnia was still terrible. Teens need a lot of sleep time, but I feel like I was way more resilient on less sleep. Compared to now where I can barely function without at least 7 hours of sleep.
> "I'm sure I've said that I've been addicted to a Netflix show when I binged it really late one night, but I don't think it's the same thing as clinical addiction."
Tobacco defense. He is defending himself in a trial, is a very biased opinion.
> Familial links to lung cancer manifestation first appeared in the literature in the 1960s when siblings were found to have an increase in lung cancer mortality. ... The first published piece of literature attributing cigarette smoking to the growing incidence of lung cancer was in 1912 ... Tobacco companies enlisted the medical and nursing professions to promote the safety of their products in their advertising materials
Stop listening to billionaires and CEOs that profit the most from the damage that their business do to society. They lie for money, as simple as that.
When does it become an addiction? 26 hours?
Fair to say it's not an addiction but habit forming?
Just like food, gaming, exercise, certain drugs...?
For example with certain drug addictions there is a direct physical danger of overdose which doesn't exist in the same way with social media
habituation and addiction are technically different. But both can be very damaging.
If i only look ar it every 8 hours for 10 secs then 16 hours may be ok
Technically correct. We can't call every compulsive behaviour "addiction". Using a social app for 16 hours a day is a very serious problem and requires treatment. But it's not addiction in the same sense that other commonly-recognised addictions to substance and even behaviours are.
I'd call every enjoyment that isn't practiced as a ritual an addiction, and healthy rituals should not take up more than a fraction of the available time.
With 16 hours of daily use (and 8 hours of sleep per day) I wouldn't contrast the batched consumption here on an hours/day-basis, but on a days/year-basis, like going on a trip, a festival etc. Since that basically results in all the days available each year here, it isn't really a practiced ritual anymore, but a complete lifestyle.
He would say that.
16 hours of anything in a day is a problem. You can't even sleep for 16 hours without it being indicative of a problem.
Are we the bad guys then?
[assuming you work for Meta or a social media company] in theory (and not that debatable IMHO) if the net contribution to society on balance is negative?
If you work on a social media platform, probably, yeah.
"Thank you for smoking"
That seems like it’s probably correct, and utterly unsurprising.
Why does this deserve a headline?
Do you really believe 16 hours of use daily is not indicative of an addiction? It deserves a headline as it is is a controversial statement that aims to minimise criticism against social media platforms and thus needs to be challenged / debated in society. If social media addiction is not treated as a social problem, the people will not pressure the government to regulate it. That is why social media platforms are claiming that it is only (a personal) problem (of some individual) if some use it for 16 hours while others suggest that it has become a societal problem because its users are now addicts. Social problems needs political solutions to address, and in this case one of the suggested ways is government intervention (through regulations).
> Do you really believe 16 hours of use daily is not indicative of an addiction?
It can certainly indicate that, but typically does not.
Most instances of problematic overindulgence have absolutely nothing to do with addiction.
Sure, if you want to to be technical and pedantic about it, everything is only a "problem" until clearly diagnosed by an expert! (See Behavioural addictions: What are the signs of addiction? - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/6407-addictio... ).
That he said it or that the label “problematic” is correct?
Both of the above, and also that the label “addiction” is typically not correct.
It is absolutely revealing that the Instagram boss can’t openly admit that 16 hours of daily use is a problem.
Name one thing that is okay to do for 16 hours a day. One.
> It is absolutely revealing that the Instagram boss can’t openly admit that 16 hours of daily use is a problem.
He literally said it is problematic!
> the Instagram boss can’t openly admit that 16 hours of daily use is a problem.
> Instagram boss says 16 hours of daily use is "problematic"
Take meth for example, if someone can use it for only one hour a day is it a problem?
Who and what in your life is 16 hours of Instagram taking you away from?
Instagram is garbage by the way for any Meta people in this thread. I’m tired of not seeing anyone I follow because you’re putting ads and viral videos I don’t give a fuck about in front of me instead. No wonder it wastes 16 hours, scrolling through shit trying to find something from someone or something you follow.
Your app is literally useless for communicating or keeping up with anyone I follow.
Facebook died when it lost interest in being Facebook and wanted to become TikTok.
Instagram died when it lost interest in being Instagram and wanted to become TikTok.
Your products and company should be banned, and everyone on your board belongs in jail.
Not the best argument, as the answer is breathing.
If Instagram is as omnipresent as breathing we still have problem.
Sure, I totally agree with the sentiment, but it's not the right way to formulate an objection.
I don't think it's okay to breathe for 16 hours a day.
breathing
[flagged]
> Added the "Instagram boss" to my personal list
His compensation package must have these variable components- MAUs, hours spent, engagement etc
AktionT4.md?