From the witness stand, head of Instagram denies social media can be addictive

LOS ANGELES (CN) — The head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, took the stand Wednesday on the third day of a landmark trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court over the effect of social media on teenagers.

“I do think it’s possible to use Instagram more than you feel comfortable about,” Mosseri said, in a gentle, soothing voice. But when asked by plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier if there was “such a thing as being addicted to social media platforms,” Mosseri said he didn’t think there was.

Lanier brought up a podcast interview, in which Mosseri had said: “I think there’s such a thing as being addicted to any social media platform." Mosseri explained that he’d been using the term colloquially — comparing it to someone saying they were addicted to a Netflix show. He said he’d been referring to “problematic use” of social media, and not “clinical addiction.”

“I do have someone very close in my life who suffered from a very serious clinical addiction,” Mosseri said. “I try to be very serious with my words.”

This seemed to get a rise out of the exuberant Lanier.

“I don’t take this lightly either,” the attorney said. “Are you suggesting social media addiction is something to be taken lightly?”

Mosseri clarified: “Clearly I wasn’t being careful with my words on that podcast.”

Lanier is representing Kaley GM, a now 20-year-old woman who is suing Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube, for the companies’ role in her becoming addicted to social media, a condition she says worsened her depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia. Hers is the first bellwether trial in consolidated litigation that includes more than 1,600 personal injury plaintiffs — families of children who are accusing Meta, Google, Snap and TikTok of fomenting a teen mental health crisis. Snap and TikTok settled their role in Kaley GM’s lawsuit for an undisclosed amount, but remain as defendants in the rest of the litigation.

Although the litigation could have monumental implications for the future of social media around the world, this case has focused narrowly on the effect of Instagram and YouTube on Kaley GM, whose last name is being withheld from court proceedings to preserve her anonymity. Kaley started using YouTube when she was 6, and got her first Instagram account when she 8.

Defense attorneys have argued Kaley’s mental health struggles were caused by her tumultuous home life, in which she experienced emotional and physical abuse. If anything, they’ve argued, social media was a coping mechanism. But a plaintiff’s expert witness testified Tuesday that vulnerable children often to turn to social media as an escape, and then the escape slowly turns into an addiction that becomes a new source of trauma — the cure becoming its own kind of disease.

Lanier suggested Meta prioritizes profit over safety. Mosseri denied the charge.

“It’s hard to think of any instances where prioritizing safety isn’t good for revenue,” Mosseri said. “We know that if people have a bad experience on the platform, they’re going to leave.”

Lanier later jumped on that assertion, pointing out that Kayley GM has reported more than 300 people for bullying on Instagram, and still hasn’t left the app — implying that she can’t leave the app because she’s addicted.

“I’m not an expert on addiction,” Mosseri said.

Questioning Mosseri as an adverse witness, Lanier prodded him as to whether Meta hadn’t rushed to put out certain features before making sure they weren’t dangerous for minors. Wasn’t Facebook famous for its adage, “move fast and break things,” Lanier asked. Mosseri acknowledged that that phrase was once painted on the walls of Facebook headquarters, perhaps 15 years ago, but said the company had moved on.

“I think we moved away from that very consciously,” Mosseri said, adding that it has been replaced by the more anodyne and enigmatic adage: “Slow is smooth is and smooth is fast.”

Lanier attempted to illustrate Instagram’s irresponsibility around teen use by questioning Mosseri about the platform’s “filters,” which can be used to alter photographs by, say, changing their colors or adding animated fireworks. In 2017, the company rolled out “augmented reality” filters, which could dramatically alter one’s face in a photo —  a person could add puppy ears or make their eyes bigger. Two years later, the app began to allow third parties to create filters. It wasn’t long before filters started to appear that mimicked plastic surgery — for example, enlarging someone’s lips, as if they’d been injected with lip filler.

Alarm was raised about such filters, which were particularly popular with teenage girls. Instagram moved quickly to ban the new filters. But after a robust debate amongst high-ranking employees, they soon relaxed the ban.

“We tried to draw the line around only effects you could recreate with makeup,” Mosseri said. “In practice, we had trouble defining that line. We ended up, through a long debate, settling on not allowing any effects that promote plastic surgery.”

While filters that mimic certain types of cosmetic surgery — such as enlarged lips, a smaller nose, larger eyes, even added freckles —are currently allowed on Instagram, filters that, for example, add to one’s face lines that suggest where plastic surgery might be used, are the ones that remain banned.

“You lifted the ban,” Lanier said.

“I would say we evolved our policy,” Mosseri said. “We focused the ban on a subset of filters we thought were problematic.”

Lanier suggested that this was an instance where Instagram had chosen to put profit over safety, a notion Mosseri bristled at.

“I was never worried about any of these things effecting the stock price one way or the other,” Mosseri said, adding there were other considerations to be made when crafting policies. “In general, people get mad when we ban things. They think they’re being censored … There’s always a tradeoff between safety and speech.”

It’s unclear whether these so-called “beauty filters,” nearly all of which are designed by users, or third parties, are something that Instagram can legally be held liable for. Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act shields social media companies from third party content. This trial, however, is focused on Instagram and YouTube’s design features: notifications, “like” buttons, “infinite scroll” or “autoplay.” Most evidence regarding third party content has been excluded from the trial. But filters are a somewhat gray area, and the jury may end up having to decide if they are design features or user generated content.

Lanier indicated that he would again take up the issue of Instagram’s filters with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is expected to testify sometime next week. YouTube President Neal Mohan is also slated to take the stand later in the month-long trial.

Follow @hillelaron