Instagram boss: 16 hours of daily use is not addiction
6 months ago by excel24 to c/technology
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.
"It's important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use," [Instagram head Adam Mosseri] added.
"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."
Yet, Mosseri repeatedly said he was not an expert in addiction in response to Lanier's questioning.
he repeatedly used technicalities and weaseley language to refuse to admit it
see
Yet, Mosseri repeatedly said he was not an expert in addiction in response to Lanier’s questioning.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The post accurately copies the article's headline without editorialising.
The article itself is shit though.
@lemmy.world
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
go to feed...
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.
save