Instagram's Boss Faces Congress' Questions on Harm To Teens

The head of Instagram will find himself in Congress' crosshairs for the first time Wednesday in the one area lawmakers have shown they are willing to pass tech regulations -- protecting youngsters online. From a report: Republicans and Democrats have found common ground in grilling tech companies on how their products harm children, especially after revelations in The Wall Street Journal about Instagram's potential harm to the mental health of teen girls. Instagram head Adam Mosseri will testify before the Senate Commerce consumer protection subcommittee Wednesday on how the photo-sharing app is used by teens. Ahead of the hearing, Mosseri announced changes Instagram is making to better protect young users, including launching the Take a Break option for a user that's been scrolling for a certain amount of time and building a feature that will nudge teens toward different topics if they've been dwelling on one.

The company also announced that it plans a March launch for tools parents can use to see -- and limit -- how much time their kids spend on Instagram. And Instagram in January will allow users to bulk delete posts, including photos, videos, previous likes and comments. At the hearing, expect Mosseri to emphasize Instagram's commitment to sharing data with researchers, as well as the company's support for some regulations around verifying the age of users and designing age-appropriate experiences. Instagram's parent-company Meta has criticized the Wall Street Journal's reporting, arguing that it mischaracterized the Instagram research and that most teens suffering from issues such as sadness or anxiety find Instagram helpful.

Just age restrict it...

[cayenne8]

Just age restrict Instagram (and I'd argue all social media) like we do for alcohol, etc in the US.

Seems simple enough...would help avoid the harm they are reporting to teens and would also solve a lot of the problems with these companies gathering info on children they should not be doing.

Re:

[ShanghaiBill]

Just age restrict Instagram

Age restrictions are not difficult to bypass. Social media can move offshore. Kids can access it with Tor, and that will be seen as cool.

Many parents are apathetic. My kids use social media, and I don't care as long as their grades are good.

Teens socialize. Get over it.

Re:

[cayenne8]

Age restrictions are not difficult to bypass. Social media can move offshore. Kids can access it with Tor, and that will be seen as cool.

Well, teens can buy alcohol too at times, but we at least try and it stops most of it.

Sure some kids will try to bypass...but not all kids are that tech oriented, much like the general population.

And if there are less of their peers on there, they'll likely not be interested in getting on there. If some one bypasses it and gets on instagram and posts pics of their young

Re:

[ShanghaiBill]

Saddest thing in the world I've seen...two young people, out on a date...

Well, you have certainly convinced me. If teens aren't communicating properly on dates, then the only solution is to establish a federal agency to regulate how they talk to each other.

Re:

[JBeretta]

Well, you have certainly convinced me. If teens aren't communicating properly on dates, then the only solution is to establish a federal agency to regulate how they talk to each other.

You're still an idiot. I suspect you will always be an idiot.

It's a bit like crack for teen girls

[MrArrakis]

So Instagram's proposed solution, as a crack dealer, is to give parents tools to regulate how much crack their children can smoke every day, and the ability to erase their history of their prior crack use. Sound totally reasonable...

When has Congress punished any big tech?

[S_Stout]

This is all for show. Congress gets to pretend they're being tough for the media, then there are no consequences and we move on to something else. Zuckerberg already got grilled on being evil, Facebook continued to get more evil after, and all we got were memes of him being an unfeeling robot.

Re:

[youngone]

Huawei were punished because the US government have to have external threats they can use to keep Americans frightened.

Re:

[NFN_NLN]

> external threats they can use to keep Americans frightened.

*Cough* *Cough* COVID-19. Crap, now I have symptoms.

Re:

[youngone]

Wrong kind of threat. Covid doesn't funnel money into the military.

Re:

[pete6677]

Yep. It will be a bunch of out-of-touch blowhards bellowing about things they have no understanding of, thinking it's making them look good for the voters back home.

Re:

[Holi]

I think the bigger question is how would Congress punish big tech without violating the 1st Amendment?

Re:

[pauljlucas]

As someone else mentioned, age-restrict it. That will prevent kids from seeing content and deprive Meta of all that ad revenue. Win-win.

Re:

[cayenne8]

I think the bigger question is how would Congress punish big tech without violating the 1st Amendment?

Well, they could actually enhance these companies being tools to support the 1st amendment for all Americans, by telling them if they keep editorializing and manipulating what speech can and cannot be use don their platforms, that they are not reclassified as publishers and remove the section 230 protections.

If they allow the free flow of all legal speech, then they can keep their 230 protections and will

Did they break any laws?

[Holi]

I mean I get people are worried about, what everything these days, but does the government really have the authority to tell Whatsapp what can and can't be on their site?

Re:

[dohzer]

Depends on where it's being hosted, and the where the users are located.

Re:

[NotEmmanuelGoldstein]

... have the authority to tell ...

Does government have the authority to tell McDonalds what chemicals are allowed in chicken nuggets? Government does have the authority to regulate what businesses do to certain demographics. We need to remember businesses don't get a right to a jury and other stuff.

The question becomes, does Whatsapp have a right to promote material that harms a certain demographic? Many countries have restricted the power of cigarette manufacturers and alcohol manufacturers to promote their product. And the freedom

Re: Did they break any laws?

[ljw1004]

"Did they break any laws? Does the government really have the right to tell then what they can have on their site?"

Well, yes. You answered your own question. The government does indeed have the right to make laws that restrict what people do. Hence bringing people in for questioning, to help the government formulate any new laws.

Re:

[JBeretta]

Well, yes. You answered your own question. The government does indeed have the right to make laws that restrict what people do. Hence bringing people in for questioning, to help the government formulate any new laws.

I have a problem with your words. The government was given certain, enumerated, POWERS. They were also specifically FORBIDDEN from doing other things. The government has no RIGHT to do anything. They have the obligation to operate in the scope of power they were leant.

Re:

[MarkUltraBlack]

I don't think it really hurts teenagers. Although I'm not a mom and I can't say for sure. Besides, I can't have children yet. And my friend found a surrogacy in ohio [worldcenterofbaby.com] and said I should go there. I went to the website and looked at the prices, which are quite acceptable. But the most important thing for me is the professionals in this business, who just work in this center.