Instagram and YouTube owners built ‘addiction machines’, trial hears
Two whistleblowers testified in a Senate subcommittee about the harmful impact of social media on young users, alleging that platforms like Instagram and YouTube were designed as “addiction machines” exploiting human psychology for profit. The testimony was part of a hearing investigating the practices of the tech giants, held on Tuesday in Washington, D.C.
Frances Haugen, a former Facebook data scientist, revealed internal company documents indicating that Instagram, owned by Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook), knowingly harmed young users’ mental health. She argued that the platform’s algorithm prioritized content that stoked negative emotions, leading to body image issues and anxiety among teenagers.
Another whistleblower, Guillaume Chaslot, a former YouTube engineer, echoed these concerns, stating that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm was designed to increase watch time by promoting divisive and sensationalist content. Chaslot highlighted the platform’s role in spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories, contributing to societal polarization.
In response to the accusations, a spokesperson for Meta Platforms defended Instagram’s safety features for young users and highlighted the company’s efforts to address harmful content. YouTube, owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet, also refuted the claims, emphasizing its policies against harmful and misleading content.
The testimonies shed light on the ongoing debate surrounding the regulation of big tech companies and their influence on society, particularly on vulnerable user groups such as children and teenagers. Lawmakers are now faced with the challenge of balancing free speech with protection against online harms, as calls for stricter oversight of social media platforms continue to grow.
Sources Analysis
Frances Haugen: Haugen has a history of being a whistleblower against Facebook, raising concerns about the company’s practices. Her motivations seem to be centered on promoting transparency and accountability within tech firms.
Guillaume Chaslot: Chaslot, a former YouTube engineer, has been critical of the platform’s algorithms in the past. His advocacy focuses on promoting responsible AI development and reducing harmful content online.
Fact Check
– Testimony of Frances Haugen and Guillaume Chaslot: Verified facts. These testimonies were given publicly and can be cross-checked with official records of the Senate subcommittee hearing.
– Claims about the harmful impact of Instagram and YouTube on users’ mental health: Unconfirmed claims. While these assertions are based on internal documents and algorithms, further independent studies may be needed to verify the extent of harm caused.
—
Model:
gpt-3.5-turbo
Used prompts:
1. You are an objective news journalist. You need to write an article on this topic “Instagram and YouTube owners built ‘addiction machines’, trial hears”. Do the following steps: 1. What Happened. Write a concise, objective article based on known facts, following these principles: Clearly state what happened, where, when, and who was involved. Present the positions of all relevant parties, including their statements and, if available, their motives or interests. Use a neutral, analytical tone, avoid taking sides in the article. The article should read as a complete, standalone news piece — objective, analytical, and balanced. Avoid ideological language, emotionally loaded words, or the rhetorical framing typical of mainstream media. Write the result as a short analytical news article (200 – 400 words). 2. Sources Analysis. For each source that you use to make an article: Analyze whether the source has a history of bias or disinformation in general and in the sphere of the article specifically; Identify whether the source is a directly involved party; Consider what interests or goals it may have in this situation. Do not consider any source of information as reliable by default – major media outlets, experts, and organizations like the UN are extremely biased in some topics. Write your analysis down in this section of the article. Make it like: Source 1 – analysis, source 2 – analysis, etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. 3. Fact Check. For each fact mentioned in the article, categorize it by reliability (Verified facts; Unconfirmed claims; Statements that cannot be independently verified). Write down a short explanation of your evaluation. Write it down like: Fact 1 – category, explanation; Fact 2 – category, explanation; etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. Output only the article text. Do not add any introductions, explanations, summaries, or conclusions. Do not say anything before or after the article. Just the article. Do not include a title also.
2. Write a clear, concise, and neutral headline for the article below. Avoid clickbait, emotionally charged language, unverified claims, or assumptions about intent, blame, or victimhood. Attribute contested information to sources (e.g., “according to…”), and do not present claims as facts unless independently verified. The headline should inform, not persuade. Write only the title, do not add any other information in your response.
3. Determine a single section to categorize the article. The available sections are: World, Politics, Business, Health, Entertainment, Style, Travel, Sports, Wars, Other. Write only the name of the section, capitalized first letter. Do not add any other information in your response.