Post headline deserves a downvote. Quote from article:
Lanier asked Mosseri what he thought of K.G.M’s longest single day of use of Instagram being 16 hours.
“That sounds like problematic use,” the Instagram boss answered. He did not call it an addiction.
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.
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.
I fear for the future of reading comprehension. Before the portion Analog quotes, the article gives people multiple paragraphs of context to understand addiction as what is being talked about. I don’t expect the word to be wedged into every sentence about the same topic. Meta’s Adam Mosseri was clearly doing everything in his playbook to not use the word “addiction” in a sentence.
But I do find it much more concerning that Analog appointed himself judge of bad articles, then either accidentally or intentionally omitted the preceding paragraphs that I had to quote for him.
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.
Since you care deeply about truth or something, when will you be correcting your comments that, at best, lack huge amounts of truth that change the contents you put forth? At best, you accidentally skipped multiple paragraphs that contradict your claims. At less best, you knew better.
The comments I replied to were heavily edited after I replied. You can comment at the bottom with an Edit: and then explain what you changed. Otherwise, it is known as a ninja edit and it is generally frowned upon because it makes the conversations convoluted. Cheers!
Yeah and you probably think headlines that say “suspect dead after ICE-involved incident” is fine and that “ICE performs summary execution of innocent person” is sensationalism.
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.
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.
see
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.
Pam Bondi, is that you?
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.
I fear for the future of reading comprehension. Before the portion Analog quotes, the article gives people multiple paragraphs of context to understand addiction as what is being talked about. I don’t expect the word to be wedged into every sentence about the same topic. Meta’s Adam Mosseri was clearly doing everything in his playbook to not use the word “addiction” in a sentence.
And Adam Mosseri knew better. We know he’s been confronted with evidence of addiction but doesn’t want to listen.
But I do find it much more concerning that Analog appointed himself judge of bad articles, then either accidentally or intentionally omitted the preceding paragraphs that I had to quote for him.
I fear for it currently if you think it’s okay to make up things people said and put it in a headline.
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.
This platform loves sensationalism. Same with other platforms.
Something something defending the billionaires! /s
I just dislike sensationalism.
If the truth isn’t enough, then I don’t want it.
You dislike the truth. You should watch Tobacco CEOs deny that cigarettes were an addiction.
https://youtu.be/A6B1q22R438
Hopefully Analog returns to Lemmy in far less than 12 days, and heavily edits their comments to reflect their error
Yeah, that was some serious ninja editing.
What editing? Didn’t edit either if those posts.
Since you care deeply about truth or something, when will you be correcting your comments that, at best, lack huge amounts of truth that change the contents you put forth? At best, you accidentally skipped multiple paragraphs that contradict your claims. At less best, you knew better.
The comments I replied to were heavily edited after I replied. You can comment at the bottom with an Edit: and then explain what you changed. Otherwise, it is known as a ninja edit and it is generally frowned upon because it makes the conversations convoluted. Cheers!
@RemindMe@feddit.org about correcting misinformation in 24 hours
Yeah and you probably think headlines that say “suspect dead after ICE-involved incident” is fine and that “ICE performs summary execution of innocent person” is sensationalism.
The post accurately copies the article’s headline without editorialising.
The article itself is shit though.