The Head of Instagram Agrees To Testify as Congress Probes the App's Effects on Young People (nytimes.com) 13
Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, has agreed for the first time to testify before Congress, as bipartisan anger mounts over harms to young people from the app. From a report: Mr. Mosseri is expected to appear before a Senate panel during the week of Dec. 6 as part of a series of hearings on protecting children online, said Senator Richard Blumenthal, who will lead the hearing. Mr. Mosseri's appearance follows hearings this year with Antigone Davis, the global head of safety for Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, and with Frances Haugen, a former employee turned whistle-blower. Ms. Haugen's revelations about the social networking company, particularly those about Facebook and Instagram's research into its effects on some teenagers and young girls, have spurred criticism, inquiries from politicians and investigations from regulators.
In September, Ms. Davis told Congress that the company disputed the premise that Instagram was harmful for teenagers and noted that the leaked research did not have causal data. But after Ms. Haugen's testimony last month, Mr. Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, wrote a letter to Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, suggesting that his company had "provided false or inaccurate testimony to me regarding attempts to internally conceal its research." Mr. Blumenthal asked that Mr. Zuckerberg or Mr. Mosseri testify in front of the consumer protection subcommittee of the Senate's Commerce Committee to set the record straight.
In September, Ms. Davis told Congress that the company disputed the premise that Instagram was harmful for teenagers and noted that the leaked research did not have causal data. But after Ms. Haugen's testimony last month, Mr. Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, wrote a letter to Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, suggesting that his company had "provided false or inaccurate testimony to me regarding attempts to internally conceal its research." Mr. Blumenthal asked that Mr. Zuckerberg or Mr. Mosseri testify in front of the consumer protection subcommittee of the Senate's Commerce Committee to set the record straight.
Make Social Media Adult Only: Age Restrict it... (Score:4, Interesting)
If no one under the age or 18 or 21yrs could get on (legally)....it would solve:
1. Companies gathering data on minors.
2. Teens and younger being bullied online
3. Teens and younger self esteem issues (apparently really bad with teen girls).
4. Teens not learning real, meatspace in live social skills...interacting in person, etc.
5. Young people, by virtue of interacting in person, developing long, long term friendships that are lasting and real with people you can depend on to be there when you need, etc.
And this could help solve itself...once you make it difficult for them to get on...that means less of them there, which reenforces itself in that they won't want to get on there where most people are all just boring old adults, etc.
We restrict things that are best left to adults (not that we all do that great with them) like alcohol and weed, etc.
Will gating it off work 100%? No...it doesn't with booze either, but it does hinder and make it more difficult.
Re: (Score:3)
We need to age restrict on the other end too. People that have nothing to do but sit and absorb completely random lunatic level conspiracy theories are better off finding some other hobbies.
Re: (Score:3)
I know plenty of adults that can't handle social media. I also know couples who got a divorce, just because of Instagram
Re:Make Social Media Adult Only: Age Restrict it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Another bullshit take. Funny how you cherry-pick all the ills of social media and ignore all the benefits (most of which are a direct corollary to your ills list).
But by all means, sure, it sounds brilliant to socially isolate people into their own little meatspace groups - that works out great for everyone (...you know of).
Re: (Score:2)
I see VERY little benefit to social media vs how life was before it, which wasn't all that long ago.
SM has wrought a lot of damage to society in a short period of time.
Yer doin it wrong, Zuck - (Score:3)
Sure, you profit by knowing every pathetic detail of the lives of socially awkward people who resort to 'social' media because of their fear of real human interactions. You have power over those people and can lead them anywhere you please. But what about those pesky congresspeople? Your only power over them is to pay for their re-election but they don't really need you for that, do they?
Learn from history, Zuck. There was once another person who had information about everyone and who used that information not for profit, but for power. He was the most feared man in America. His name was J. Edgar Hoover and he created and ran the FBI. Here's an excerpt from his Wiki:
"Later in life and after his death, Hoover became a controversial figure as evidence of his secretive abuses of power began to surface. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI,[2] and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[3] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[4] Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten others, including multiple sitting presidents of the United States.[5]"
This is the kind of information that gets you off the hook with Congress, Zuck. Sign those suckers up for your next 'social' network scam and learn about their secret perversions and insider trades. And while you're at it, throw me a few million for the good advice.
Lip service (Score:2)
I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for Congress to investigate Hollywood for pushing under-18s for getting boob, lip, and now ass implants. Fat fake lips are done for prepubescent.
All this affects self-esteem. If that is Congress' concern.
Now where ... (Score:2)
This shit is getting old. (Score:2)
Anything which exposes us to the unwashed opinions of our fellow man is "dangerous". This witch hunt is pointless.
If the old bulletin boards or IRC were all we had and millions upon millions of people were using them, people would complain they are "dangerous" too.
And if I gather it, one of the main "muh teen girls!" complaints is a body image, meaning they're worried people will get fucking anorexia which kills a small handful of people a year, while obesity is the real problem we have. So if you're going
social media (Score:5, Insightful)
Are social media and violent video games responsible for all the problems in the world? Can someone explain how slavery was an acceptable and widespread cultural practice worldwide before either of the video games and social media existed? I mean, people .. many of whom could be considered well-balanced and even capable of empathy to people they could relate to.. thought it was ok to own another human and do whatever you wanted with them .. long before someone riled them up to it on social media. Heck we even had people who thought putting people who did no crime into gas chambers was OK. How did they get the idea for that before violent video games? How did Kristallnacht occur before social media? How did the genocidal riots in Rwanda happen before facebook, twitter or whatsapp existed? How did people get lynched? How did Klan rallies organize before twitter? Blaming human evil on social media is dumb. If anything social media has reduced these occurring because they reveal the perpetrators and also provide some sort of release for idiots.