837
Instagram boss: 16 hours of daily use is not addiction
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
837 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
84891 readers
3634 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Post headline deserves a downvote. Quote from article:
He also didn’t say it was a tomato. Like wtf do you want, I can’t tell if he was asked specifically if 16 hours a day was an addiction. The prior question was about whether he had known she had a 16hr day, and he had not. (He should have; poor trial prep.)
This is sensationalist BS and I dearly want this platform to be better than that.
Just so we’re clear, Meta can die in a fire and the world would be better off, I’m not defending them in the slightest.
The title is accurate.
He was asked if it was an addiction, and he repeatedly used technicalities and weaseley language to refuse to admit it.
That still sounds misleading. He was not speaking for 16 hours of use which is what the headline suggests. As other has stated, I hope those companies crumble but I think honesty is important, not sensationalization.
I fear for the future of reading comprehension. Before the portion Analog quotes, the article gives people multiple paragraphs of context to understand addiction as what is being talked about. I don't expect the word to be wedged into every sentence about the same topic. Meta's Adam Mosseri was clearly doing everything in his playbook to not use the word "addiction" in a sentence.
And Adam Mosseri knew better. We know he's been confronted with evidence of addiction but doesn't want to listen.
But I do find it much more concerning that Analog appointed himself judge of bad articles, then either accidentally or intentionally omitted the preceding paragraphs that I had to quote for him.
I fear for it currently if you think it's okay to make up things people said and put it in a headline.
see
Even if a nonexpert claims something is clinical addiction, they're a nonexpert & their word is meaningless. For a credible statement, they'll need to admit relevant evidence instead of ask a nonexpert.
Imagine being asked for a medical diagnosis when you're not a qualified physician. It's perfectly fair to point out you're not an expert on the matter & point out your awareness of distinctions between imprecise conventional language & precise, scientific definitions.
No one is obligated to volunteer dubious claims to antagonize themselves on the stand just because you want them to.
Pam Bondi, is that you?
He's right. Clinical addiction has nothing to do with how much you do something, it has to do with how much it causes problems in your life. I know everyone on Lemmy is tripping over their own hard ons to kill corporations, but there are people using lemmy 16 hours a day and if laws are passed to fight Internet addiction, they will not specifically target corporations. We all go down together. Just ask the creator of Urban Dead.
I guess we could chalk it up to bad journalism because the example was purely anecdotal. It‘s frustrating for sure.
*hards on
So someone doing Heroin everday is not addicted if it doesn't cause any problems in life? Clinical Addiction absolutely does have to do with how much you do something (and other factors of course).
The entire line of questioning was about addiction and the CEO was pretending it wasn't (he didn't want up admit the truth because his company would be liable). The headline was accurate and your take is officially a hot one.
Something something defending the billionaires! /s
I just dislike sensationalism.
If the truth isn’t enough, then I don’t want it.
You dislike the truth. You should watch Tobacco CEOs deny that cigarettes were an addiction.
https://youtu.be/A6B1q22R438
Hopefully Analog returns to Lemmy in far less than 12 days, and heavily edits their comments to reflect their error
Yeah, that was some serious ninja editing.
What editing? Didn’t edit either if those posts.
The comments I replied to were heavily edited after I replied. You can comment at the bottom with an Edit: and then explain what you changed. Otherwise, it is known as a ninja edit and it is generally frowned upon because it makes the conversations convoluted. Cheers!
Since you care deeply about truth or something, when will you be correcting your comments that, at best, lack huge amounts of truth that change the contents you put forth? At best, you accidentally skipped multiple paragraphs that contradict your claims. At less best, you knew better.
Post said he said a thing. He did not say the thing. Not complicated.
Could have worded the post title to be accurate: didn’t. Instead, lied.
Words matter. Truth matters. Interpretation is how you get religious people performing atrocities based on millennia old writings.
“[Asshole] Squirms Under Questioning, Refuses To Admit 16hrs A Day Is Addictive Behavior.”
Not hard.
Your comments now are a huge shift from
Seems that, in the interest of accuracy, you should update them, lest you be the thing you claim others are.
I recommend a re-read, my good buddy, of all my posts in this thread.
Truth. Not lies. Not conjecture.
This can be the truth that he was dodging the question.
Don’t say people said things they didn’t say. Simple.
Your original post was a lie, or dumb accident, through omission. And now that you know better, you are lying intentionally in it.
You know damn well they were talking about addiction and not tomatoes. And yet you dishonestly tell people those two things are the same.
Did the douchebag say exactly what the post title said he said?
Have you walked back your lie comparing the actual topic of addiction to the irrelevant topic of tomatoes? Make sure you post an explicit correction along with an apology.
"If the truth isn't enough, I don't want it." Please demonstrate.
Yeah and you probably think headlines that say "suspect dead after ICE-involved incident" is fine and that "ICE performs summary execution of innocent person" is sensationalism.
The post accurately copies the article's headline without editorialising.
The article itself is shit though.