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

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 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.)

>> 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?