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
82002 readers
3235 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
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.
You support lying. Good to know.
If you don’t understand the tomato comment, no wonder you’re having so much trouble with the interpretation and lying topics!
There's no way you can say that the inquiry was about tomatoes as much as it was about addiction. Not without being incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest.
You are now intentionally leaving out multiple paragraphs of content that would prove the opposite, which adds to your deception.
Demonstrate a grain of honesty by fixing your lies and maybe you'll have a right to talk.
You really don’t understand and are just driving the point home the more you post. I feel kinda sorry for you.
Please defend your use of your lying false equivalency. Demonstrate your wisdom, Truth Seeker.
What do you think my original point was?
Yours was essentially “it doesn’t matter if he said addiction or not, he was dodging the question. All the evidence points towards him claiming that much usage is not an addiction.”
I told you what your point was. Over and over. And I told you how you were misleading (and now, just intentionally dishonest). Quite a few people seem to understand exactly what I told you.
So if you think there's a communication issue, it's on your side to fix.
You got it wrong and aren’t willing to recognize that. The fact that you can’t even paraphrase my point (no matter how wrong you think I am) shows just how out of your depth that you are.
The stupid/malicious dichotomy just keeps coming up with you, huh. How did you miss the explanations? Ditto for your original wrong comment.
Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.
How can you be arguing with someone and not even know what their position is? No, none of your prior posts come close.
Naw, screw “know” - you’re fucking clueless. You have no idea and are screaming into the wind.
Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.
You’re out here swinging on a straw man if you can’t restate what you think my position is, and have it be remotely accurate. Which, so far, you’re not even close.
Did I summarize your position well enough? Any clarifications?
Wrong.
Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.
lol @ copy and paste. You’re committing a second logical fallacy: appeal to authority.
Still so wrong “bro”
lol you missed the duplicate the first time, yet another sign of your illiteracy. And you ignored it, typical of the belligerent hypocrite... But tell us, o wise one, what "authority" do you feel was appealed to?
@RemindMe@feddit.org about correcting misinformation in 24 hours
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.