Instagram chief asked about social media addiction

Instagram Chief Executive Adam Mosseri said Wednesday in testimony in a high-profile social media trial that he believes social media use can be problematic, but doesn’t believe it constitutes an addiction.

“I’m sure I’ve said this, but I think it’s important to distinguish between clinical addiction and problematic use,” Mosseri said, noting multiple times that he is not a medical professional.

Mosseri said the use of the word addiction can refer to something more casually, and while he might have previously said it was an addiction, he said: Netflix Look, it’s not an actual clinical addiction.

“Personally, I think you can use Instagram more than you think,” Mosseri said. “Too much is relative and personal.”

Mosseri testified in Los Angeles Superior Court that the plaintiffs said social media platforms MetaYouTube, TikTok, and Snap misled the public about the safety of their apps, knowing that certain design choices and features negatively impacted the mental health of young users.

TikTok and snap Both companies were initially involved in the lawsuit, but are no longer involved after settling with the plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit.

“The question for the Los Angeles jury is whether Instagram was a significant contributing factor to the plaintiff’s mental health issues,” a Mehta spokesperson said.

The L.A. case centers on the plaintiff, listed as “KGM,” and his mother, who allege that technology companies designed features such as infinite scrolling that led to addictive behaviors and negative mental health issues.

A spokesperson for Mehta said in a statement: “The evidence would show that she faced many important and difficult challenges long before she used social media.”

Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier questioned Mosseri about his social media addiction and certain choices by corporate executives that allegedly caused negative harm.

When Lanier asked Mosseri if there was a problem with how people used Instagram, Mosseri replied, “I think it depends on the person.”

Lanier asked Mosseri about his role as Instagram’s “decision maker” and whether he leans toward making profitable decisions before testing, or whether he’s more focused on testing products first to protect children.

“In general, we should be focused on protecting minors, but I believe that protecting minors in the long term is good for business and good for the bottom line,” Mosseri said.

The case, which had opening statements Monday, is one of several cases this year centered on the safety of social media platforms and what companies knew about their potential dangers to children.

Lanier introduced an exhibit detailing an email exchange between company executives in November 2019 debating whether to ban digital filters that alter photos of people’s faces to appear as if they have undergone plastic surgery.

Mosseri said that after discussing what was acceptable given the advanced features of modern makeup, it was ultimately decided not to allow any digital effects that promote plastic surgery.

A subheading in the series of emails included the phrase “Plastic surgery PR firestorm,” and Meta executives discussed concerns from news organizations and medical professionals about whether the effects of digital filtering could cause harmful mental health problems.

In a series of emails, Metatech chief Andrew Bosworth informed CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the cosmetic digital filter, saying the Facebook co-founder “may want to consider it before deploying it.”

“He’s concerned about whether there’s enough data to show that this is actually harmful,” Bosworth said of Zuckerberg’s views on the project.

“A blanket ban on things that makeup cannot do would limit our ability to be competitive in Asian markets (including India),” former Meta executive John Hegeman said in a separate email related to the chain.

“I would rather develop a nuanced framework for responsible use so that people can build products that they clearly want and purposely seek,” Hegeman wrote in an email.

Mosseri said Wednesday that he interpreted Hageman’s comments to mean that the proposed blanket ban on filters would hurt the company’s ability to compete in Asian markets, but he did not believe the former Meta executive was talking about money, but rather cultural relevance.

He said Meta wants to make the platform culturally relevant so people can enjoy it, rather than making money from filters.

Mr. Lanier then shared an email exchange between Mr. Mosseri and Meta policy chief Andy O’Connell in which the Instagram chief was asked to choose one of three options before asking Mr. Zuckerberg for an executive decision on filters.

The first option included temporarily banning plastic surgery filters based on current policy and then reevaluating them when more conclusive data on health conditions becomes available. This option was cited as having the “pros” of reducing welfare concerns and not posing public relations or regulatory risks, but also had the “cons” of limiting growth.

The second option removes the effects recommended to Instagram users while unbanning the shaping filter. The “cons” of that option included still significant risks to well-being.

The third option is to lift the ban, which would have the lowest impact on growth but the highest risks to well-being and could attract negative media attention.

Mr. Mosseri responded to an email saying he preferred option 2, but Mr. Lanier pointed out that it was a choice that carried significant risks to his well-being.

“While I respect and support your call on this matter, I just want to be clear that this is not the right decision given the risks,” Margaret Stewart, Facebook’s vice president of product design and responsible innovation, wrote in a response to Mosseri. Stewart supported banning the filters.

Mosseri reiterated in court that the company ended up with a more “focused ban” that included a subset of digital filters.

In cross-examination, Mosseri further explained that the digital filters are for a small number of users who want to make their posts more fun and interesting, but that the company does not profit from the technology.

“We want to help people express themselves, but when it comes to revenue, it’s determined by how many ads people see on Instagram,” Mosseri said. “I have not seen any data to suggest that using filters drives content consumption or advertising. It is not a revenue decision.”

WATCH: New Mexico AG Raul Torres talks about meth trial.