Instagram CEO denies addiction claims in landmark US trial. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Sensationalism / Manufactured controversy

Emphasizing the dramatic or precedent‑setting nature of an event in a way that can amplify perceived stakes or controversy.

Phrases such as: - "landmark US trial that could establish a legal precedent on whether social media companies deliberately designed their platforms to lead to addiction in children." - "blockbuster trial, which could set a legal precedent regarding whether social media giants deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive to children." - "tidal wave of similar litigation across the United States." - "bellwether proceeding whose outcome could set the tone for a wave of similar litigation across the United States." These descriptions heighten the drama and scale of the case. While they may be factually grounded (there are many related lawsuits), the repeated use of terms like "landmark", "blockbuster", "tidal wave" and "bellwether" frames the story as highly dramatic and consequential, which can nudge readers toward viewing the situation as more extraordinary or alarming than a strictly neutral description would.

3 suggestions

Replace highly dramatic descriptors with more neutral wording. For example: change "landmark US trial" to "a closely watched US trial" or "a significant US trial" unless a specific legal authority has designated it as landmark.

Avoid repetition of dramatic metaphors. Instead of "tidal wave of similar litigation" and "wave of similar litigation", use a more measured phrase such as "a large number of similar lawsuits" or "numerous related cases".

Clarify the basis for calling it a bellwether or precedent‑setting case (e.g., by citing legal experts or court documents) so that the framing is clearly sourced rather than appearing as the outlet’s own dramatic characterization.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged elements (especially involving harm to children or suicide) to influence readers’ attitudes beyond the evidentiary content.

The article opens with a vivid, emotionally powerful scene: "Father from the United Kingdom George Nicolaou arrives holding a photo of his 15-year-old son Christopher, who took his own life, outside the Los Angeles County Superior Court..." This image and detail are not directly tied to the specific plaintiff in the case (Kaley G.M.) but foreground a tragic suicide, which can strongly prime readers emotionally before they encounter the legal and factual details. Later, the article notes that social media firms face lawsuits involving "depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalisation, and even suicide." While these are relevant allegations, the combination of the opening image and the list of severe outcomes can intensify emotional impact relative to the amount of causal evidence presented in the article itself.

3 suggestions

Explicitly connect the opening anecdote to the case if it is directly relevant (e.g., explain whether this father is part of related litigation or advocacy in this specific trial). If not, consider moving this detail lower in the article or summarizing it more neutrally to reduce emotional priming.

Balance emotionally charged descriptions with brief clarification of the current evidentiary status (e.g., "alleged links" or "claims that social media contributed to these outcomes"), making clear that causation is contested and under litigation.

Include a short, neutral explanation that these are allegations being tested in court, not established findings, to help readers separate emotional narratives from proven facts.

Framing effect / Narrative fallacy

Presenting facts within a narrative frame that suggests a particular interpretation (e.g., a story of corporate exploitation of children) without explicitly stating that this is one of several possible interpretations.

The structure of the article and some word choices contribute to a narrative of powerful companies versus vulnerable youth: - "whether social media companies deliberately designed their platforms to lead to addiction in children." - "knowingly hooked children on its platform for profit." - "little more than a dopamine ‘slot machine’ for vulnerable young people." - "Meta and Google ‘don’t only build apps; they build traps,’ Lanier said." All of these are properly attributed to plaintiffs or their lawyers, which is good practice. However, the article does not provide comparable narrative framing from the defense beyond a few short rebuttal lines (e.g., family context, comparison to Netflix/TV). The overall arc leans toward a story of deliberate exploitation, even though the legal question is unresolved.

3 suggestions

Add more context on the defense’s broader arguments, not just one‑line rebuttals. For example, briefly summarize any evidence or expert testimony the companies plan to present regarding design choices, safety measures, or research on addiction.

Explicitly remind readers that these are competing narratives in an ongoing trial (e.g., "Plaintiffs allege X, while the companies dispute this and argue Y; the court has not yet ruled on these claims.").

Include neutral background on the scientific debate about social media and addiction (e.g., that there is ongoing research and disagreement among experts) to counteract the impression that the plaintiffs’ framing is the only or dominant interpretation.

Appeal to authority

Relying on the status of an expert or official to support a claim without presenting the underlying evidence or acknowledging scientific uncertainty.

The article cites Stanford professor Anna Lembke: "Stanford University School of Medicine professor Anna Lembke, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, testified Tuesday that she views social media, broadly speaking, as a drug. She also said young people’s brains were underdeveloped... comparing YouTube to a gateway drug for kids." Her institutional affiliation and expertise lend weight to the plaintiffs’ framing of social media as a drug and YouTube as a "gateway drug." However, the article does not mention whether there are opposing experts, nor does it briefly note that this is one expert’s view in a contested field. This can subtly encourage readers to accept her analogy as authoritative fact rather than as one side’s expert testimony.

3 suggestions

Clarify that Lembke is a witness for the plaintiffs and that her views are part of their case, not a consensus statement (e.g., "Lembke, testifying for the plaintiffs, argued that...").

Indicate whether the defense plans to call its own experts or present contrary research, even if only in brief (e.g., "The companies are expected to call their own experts who dispute the characterization of social media as a drug.").

Avoid presenting analogies like "gateway drug" as if they were established scientific classifications; explicitly label them as analogies or opinions (e.g., "she likened YouTube to a 'gateway drug' for kids").

Conflating correlation with causation / Oversimplification (potential)

Presenting or implying a causal link between social media use and severe outcomes (e.g., suicide, psychiatric hospitalization) without clarifying that the legal and scientific questions of causation are unresolved.

The article states: - "Social media firms face more than a thousand lawsuits accusing them of leading young users to become addicted to content and suffer from depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalisation, and even suicide." While the word "accusing" signals that these are claims, the sentence structure can still be read as suggesting a causal chain from social media to these outcomes. The article does not briefly note that these are allegations under dispute, nor does it mention other contributing factors (which the defense raises in one line about family context).

3 suggestions

Rephrase to emphasize that these are allegations and that causation is contested. For example: "Social media firms face more than a thousand lawsuits alleging that their platforms contributed to addiction and to mental health problems, including depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalisation, and suicide."

Add a short clause noting that the companies dispute these claims and that courts are still evaluating the evidence.

Where possible, distinguish between correlation (heavy users also experiencing these issues) and proven causation, or at least note that the scientific community has not reached a definitive consensus.