Instagram chief likens social media addiction to being hooked on a Netflix show in trial testimony

Instagram chief Adam Mosseri said Wednesday during testimony in a high-profile social media trial that he thinks there can be problematic usage of social media, but does not think it constitutes an addiction.

“I’m sure I said this, but I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” said Mosseri, who noted several times that he is not a medical professional.

Mosseri said that sometimes the use of the word addiction can refer to something more casually, and  noted that while he may have once said he was addicted to a Netflix show, that’s not an actual clinical addiction.

“So it’s a personal thing, but yeah, I do think it’s possible to use Instagram more than you feel good about,” Mosseri said. “Too much is relative, it’s personal.”

Mosseri testified in Los Angeles Superior Court, where the plaintiff alleges that social media platforms Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap misled the public about the safety of their apps while knowing certain design choices and features fostered detrimental mental health effects in young users.

Although TikTok and Snap were originally part of the case, the two companies are no longer involved after settling with a plaintiff involved in the lawsuit.

“The question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles,” a Meta spokesperson said.

The LA trial centers around a plaintiff listed as “KGM” and her mother, who allege that the tech companies designed features like infinite scroll that resulted in addictive behavior and negative mental health issues.

“The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media,” the Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

Mark Lanier, the plaintiff’s lawyer, questioned Mosseri about social media addiction and about certain choices that company executives made that resulted in alleged negative harm.

When Lanier asked Mosseri whether there’s such a thing as problematic usage of Instagram, Mosseri replied, “I think it depends on the person.”

Lanier pressed Mosseri about his role as a “decision maker” for Instagram, and if he leans toward making decisions that lead to profit before testing, or if he emphasizes testing products first to protect children.

“In general, we should be focused on the protection of minors, but I believe protecting minors over the long run is good for business and for profit,” Mosseri said.

The trial, which had opening statements Monday, is one of multiple legal cases this year that center on the safety of social media platforms and what the companies knew about potential dangers to children.

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

Mosseri said that the company ultimately decided to not allow any digital effects that would encourage plastic surgery after debating what could be permissible given the advanced capabilities of modern-day makeup.

In the email chain, in which one subhead included the phrase “PR fire on plastic surgery,” Meta executives discussed concerns from the press and health experts on whether the digital filtering effects could lead to detrimental mental health issues.

Meta tech chief Andrew Bosworth said in the email chain that he notified CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the plastic surgery digital filter, and that the Facebook co-founder “might want to review before implementing.”

“He is concerned about whether we have good enough data that this represents real harm,” Bosworth said of Zuckerberg’s view on the project.

Former Meta executive John Hegeman said in another email related to the chain that “a blanket ban on things that can’t be done with make-up is going to limit our ability to be competitive in Asian markets (including India).”

“I’d much rather see us develop a nuanced framework for responsible use that still allows us to build the products that people clearly want and intentionally seek out,” Hegeman wrote in the email.

Mosseri said Wednesday that while he interpreted Hegeman’s comments to mean that a blanket ban of the proposed filters would hurt the company’s ability to compete in Asian markets, he didn’t think that the former Meta executive was talking about money, but rather cultural relevance.

He said that Meta doesn’t make money from its filters and instead wants to be culturally relevant so people can enjoy the platform.

Lanier then presented an email exchange between Mosseri and Meta policy executive Andy O’Connell in which the Instagram head was asked to pick one of three options before going to Zuckerberg for his executive decision on the filters.

The first option included a temporary ban on plastic surgery filters under the current policy, and then a re-evaluation when there is more definitive data on wellbeing. The option listed “pros” of mitigating well-being concerns and leading to no PR or regulatory risks, but it had the “cons” of limiting growth.

The second option would lift the ban on the plastic surgery filters while removing the effects from being recommended to Instagram users. The “cons” of that option included a still notable risk to well-being.

The third option was a lift on the ban, which would have the lowest impact to growth but the highest risk to well-being and the possibility of generating bad media attention.

Mosseri replied to the email that he preferred option 2, which Lanier noted was the choice that involved a notable risk to well-being.

“I respect your call on this and I’ll support it, but want it to just say for the record that i don’t think its the right call given the risks,” wrote Margaret Stewart, the vice president of product design and responsible innovation at Facebook, in a reply to Mosseri. Stewart supported banning the filters.

Mosseri told the courtroom repeatedly that the company ended up with a more “focused ban” that involved a subset of digital filters.

During cross-examination, Mosseri further explained that digital filters are for a minority of users who want to make posts more fun and entertaining, but that the company doesn’t make any money from the technology.

“We want to help people express themselves. But when it comes to revenue, that’s based on how many ads people see on Instagram,” Mosseri said. “I haven’t seen any data that suggests using filters drives content consumption or ads. It’s not a revenue decision.”

WATCH: New Mexico AG Raul Torrez on Meta trial.