It’s worth keeping in mind that 16 hours was their single highest day of use ever, not their typical daily use.
I’m sure I’ve spent 16 hours on Netflix or League of Legends in a 24 hour period before, yet my median daily usage is 0 hours, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to describe my usage as an addition either.
I’m not saying people don’t get addicted to social media, they do, but in this particular case I think his description of problematic is adequate, and this headline is unnecessarily confrontational.
Now do “Mosseri said he did not think it was possible to say how much Instagram use was too much.”
The guy doesn’t have a red line when it comes to children. That’s self serving and dangerous. (It’s also against a mounting pile of evidence, much of which Facebook has tried to lie about.)
I’m not defending him at all, but why does it matter what Mosseri thinks? It doesn’t surprise me at all that [tobacco executive/drug dealer/social media executive] is downplaying their negative effects on society.
Isn’t it up to the parents to limit social media use?
> why does it matter what Mosseri thinks? It doesn’t surprise me at all that [tobacco executive/drug dealer/social media executive] is downplaying their negative effects on society
It might not surprise me. But if Philip Morris started arguing nicotine isn't addictive, I'd assume they're no longer able to run their organisation without increased public oversight.
> Isn’t it up to the parents to limit social media use?
Sure. One way parents can do that is by encouraging their represenatatives to pass laws to protect their children.
But you aren't being realistic, you're shifting blame.
Let's play a little game of replacement to see how we feel. Suppose he is selling cigarettes, since you made the comparison. He's targeting children and teens for marketing and making it difficult for parents to detect when their kids smoke; after all, Instagram has no smell.
Do your feelings remain the same?
Do your feelings remain the same if you look back at the history of the tobacco industry, recognize they also targeted teens because teen smokers were far more likely to become lifelong users? When you realize that effective change didn't happen until actual regulation came into place along with vocal public discussion?
Do your feelings remain the same when you recognize that teens are human beings who have their own autonomy? That parents cannot watch them at all times NOR should they? We transition teens into having greater autonomy and independence. The only way your "it's up to the parents" claim actually works is with helicopter parenting and where they go from 0 autonomy when they are 17 years and 364 days old to complete autonomy the next day.
You don't sound very realistic.
You sound like you're dismissive of the parents. You sound dismissive of the very thing you claim to advocate for. Realistically parents try to solve things by themselves, like most people. Then they turn to peers and family for help. Then they turn to local communities. There is a natural escalation of these things. That's the reality most people live in. Maybe that's not your reality, but it is that of most people. Are you really surprised that people have to escalate and take collective action? Otherwise it's a million battles of one set of parents vs a multitrillion dollar organization with supercomputers and experts on psychology and addiction. I'm just being realistic here, but it seems to me that it is more effective to combine forces, to form a coalition.
> I’m not defending him, I’m just being realistic here
The term is over-used, but this is actual victim blaming. Nobody is surprised when a serial killer serial kills. But if a bystanders starts then arguing that we shouldn't be surprised at that, and that the victims shouldn't have gone into a neighbourhood with a serial killer, they're just being realistic...they're defending the serial killer. That's what their lawyer would be expected to argue. (It's literally what Mosseri and his supporters are saying.)
It's really just not there yet. I've been in medical school for >3 years now and have been using the latest models with good prompting. They have gotten much better, but I still see misses that my classmates would easily catch. This is not acceptable in healthcare. It's certainly not getting 100% on all my assignments, which are a step below the complexity of real-world clinical practice.
Before medical school, I was not so sure of the quality of your average doc. Now having spent a year in clinical practice across various settings, I am extremely reassured. I can say with certainty that a US trained doctor is miles ahead of AI right now. The system sucks really bad though and forces physicians to churn patients, giving the impression that physicians don't pay attention/don't care/etc.
Because it's a UK fine. The "monopoly" is driven by Apple making very good products for a long period of time and the UK putting its money almost anywhere but into people who might invent the next iPhone-like thing and make people's lives better worldwide.
Why? You probably know just how long these cases take, so it is not like all other countries are now going to do the same.
If that's the case then using their total profit seems the only proper measure. What it says is that these companies lose these cases but it's so infrequent that they can just price it in. It's a cost of doing business.
If we were to fine Tim Cook 1000$ for doing something that paid him 1M would that have the 'effect' of keeping him from doing that again?
Countries with similar laws might very well consider doing the same after reviewing the case and considering how well it matches their own situation.
Other than that I agree with you - the fine doesn't make much of a difference unless the risk becomes so significant that it effectively threatens the jobs of people not to address it, and it will only threaten jobs if it becomes more expensive to continue ignoring these laws than paying fines if/when individual countries take them to court.
Limiting it to App Store profit doesn’t make sense. The App Store is not an independent corporation (although it’d be great if some regulator forced it to be!) Apple makes the decisions about its behavior.
The Model Y has been iteratively improved since its introduction like any other product, and remains the best selling car in its class in most western markets.
This argument makes about as much sense as saying Apple hasn’t released a new phone since 2007.
That is very very variable. In the last five years, raw lithium carbonate world market prices have been swinging from $10/kg to >$70/kg and back. So right now LiFePo is getting cheaper, but if lithium explodes in price again, battery prices will rise too.
Not only have you cherry picked anecdotes to support this, but you don’t have a counter factual, e.g. maybe someone who survives until 95 on junk food would have lived until 105 on healthy food.
These fabs don’t evaporate the water though, they use it as process water, and then treat it to wastewater standards before discharging to the municipal wastewater system.
Assuming the municipality recycles their wastewater, which they would do in any drought prone region, this water will become clean water again.
I read they either dump it into a local river while monitoring it or back to water treatment plant. Some datacenters have started reusing water but for some reason using it more than once is not appealing. Definitely the biggest problem is it’s not always a closed system and dumping it into a river potentially damages the river and makes the area lose their water. A percentage of the water is also lost via evaporation.
It’s definitely not a closed system unless the water from the waste water treatment plant is pumped back upstream of the source of the municipal water which is not how most of these work.
There’s little relationship between the net income of a company and what is an appropriate bug bounty, especially a company as diversified as alphabet.
I think that perspective mostly exists amongst the chronically online. I don’t see it much in the real world.
All EVs depreciate quickly, Tesla isn’t unique in this regard.
The reason is simply that the market is currently higher income earning early adopters. That customer base is willing to pay the premium for the newest model, and upgrades quickly when newer models come out.
This results in a large of supply of 3 year old vehicles, but not much demand.
In time we’ll see used EVs depreciate at rates more similar to ICE vehicles, as mainstream buyers, who view EVs as a car rather than a tech product, enter the market.
> The reason is simply that the market is currently higher income earning early adopters.
I'm not sure this has a basis in reality. There is no supporting evidence for it.
On the contrary, there is evidence that both Musk's favorability rating[1] and Tesla's brand reputation[2][3] have nosedived over the last few years and especially after Jan 2025.
If you want to claim an income-value-market cause, you'll have to provide more compelling evidence.
Maybe you missed it, but there was a whole period in the Spring when people were in the real world protesting in front of actual Tesla dealerships. These were people like my parents, who don't even have social media, yet they were dragging themselves and their protest signs to the local Tesla dealerships every weekend. People got so mad they were setting Teslas on fire! When people are so pissed they're firebombing dealerships, you can't pretend it's just online murmurings.
I’m sure I’ve spent 16 hours on Netflix or League of Legends in a 24 hour period before, yet my median daily usage is 0 hours, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to describe my usage as an addition either.
I’m not saying people don’t get addicted to social media, they do, but in this particular case I think his description of problematic is adequate, and this headline is unnecessarily confrontational.
reply