Meta just launched a new AI generator, Muse Image, and users are already pushing back over use of their photos 36%

By Lucas Ropek25%

7/7/2026, 10:18:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.8% saturation with 167 hits. Analysis detected 1,159 faulty-reasoning hits from 701 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.9% and a BS Rank of 36% (13,736 of 21,203 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.80% of the article peer group.

Meta on Tuesday unveiled Muse Image, its new AI image generator built by Meta Superintelligence Labs, the company's dedicated AI unit. 
The feature, which was internally code-named Mango, is now available for free through the Meta AI app, as well as on Instagram Stories and WhatsApp. 
Unfortunately, the new model is already causing controversy. 
What exactly can you do with Muse? 
It sounds like the use cases are similar to most other AI image generators  you'll be able to create plenty of goofy, cartoonish images, for instance. 
If you're short on inspiration and can't come up with original prompts on your own, Meta says that Muse comes with “presets”  prefabricated image prompts  to “spark ideas.” 
However, a particularly eyebrow-raising feature allows users to manipulate another Instagram user's images with AI, as long as that user's profile is public. 
Users merely tag the person, and it allows them to take their picture and use it to create a new AI image. 
Said one X user after The Verge first pointed out how potentially invasive this is, “Pulling real users into generated photos without explicit consent is a privacy landmine waiting to detonate.” 
Meta policy states that “people may be able to create content with your Instagram content using AI features at Meta” and that “You will not be notified about content created using AI features at Meta.” 
Meta claims users “have control” over this feature, noting that there are settings you can use to disable this kind of co-option of your pictures if you want to. 
Muse has other, less invasive applications. 
One is creating custom ads (AI has notably crept into advertising over the past year). 
Another is experimenting with interior decorating ideas  in a promotional video, a user leverages Muse to see what a secondhand couch might look like in their garage. 
This last function is designed to integrate with Facebook Marketplace, Meta's popular Craigslist-like locus of used furniture and accessories. 
The model also features prompt-based image editing, which lets users create images to share across Meta's apps and platforms 
“Ask it to mock up an image of you in front of a historical landmark, cleanly erase a photobomber from the background of a shot, or write a custom prompt to build a functional QR code,” the company offers. 
At the same time, Meta is launching a host of new AI effects for Instagram Stories, powered by Muse  notably, the same platform at the center of the photo-tagging concerns above. 
Those effects include customizable filters that can modify existing photos. 
Meta says use of the new AI model is free for “everyday creation,” though users will need a subscription plan once they exceed a certain limit. 
The company also said Muse Video  presumably an AI video generator  is “already in development.” 
TechCrunch has reached out to Meta for more information. 
Meta has released a number of AI apps and services over the past year, including an AI assistant called Creator, and Pocket, an app that can be used to vibe code video games. 
The company has been accused of having a nebulous AI strategy, although it's still on track to spend a whole lot on AI infrastructure this year as it continues to build out its services. 
Meta's privacy record is one reason for users' unease over Muse. 
The company paid a then-record $5 billion fine to the FTC in 2019, after regulators found that the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica had improperly harvested data from tens of millions of Facebook users  without their knowledge  to build voter-targeting profiles ahead of the 2016 U.S. election. 
Facebook had known about the data misuse for years before it became public. 
Separately, the company shut down Facebook's facial-recognition system in 2021  a tool that had automatically recognized people in photos and videos  amid lawsuits and regulatory pressure over its collection of biometric data. 
Basically, Muse's photo-tagging feature, which is opt-out by default, fits a pattern users and regulators have flagged before: broad use of people's data unless they actively turn it off. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.9%Lucas Ropek: 1.9%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.8%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Lucas Ropek: 3.2%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic2.1%This article: 8.0%Lucas Ropek: 1.4%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Lucas Ropek: 2.0%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias2.4%This article: 8.0%Lucas Ropek: 4.9%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 3.5%TechCrunch: 5.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 1.0%TechCrunch: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.8%Lucas Ropek: 5.5%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias23.8%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.7%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Lucas Ropek: 1.4%TechCrunch: 3.3%Halo Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.6%Lucas Ropek: 1.7%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.8%Lucas Ropek: 2.5%TechCrunch: 4.3%Appeal to Authority16.8%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.9%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.8%Lucas Ropek: 5.1%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization12.8%This article: 4.6%Lucas Ropek: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring4.6%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 1.2%TechCrunch: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.7%Lucas Ropek: 2.8%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion7.7%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.4%Lucas Ropek: 3.1%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.4%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.0%Lucas Ropek: 1.9%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal4.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.0%Lucas Ropek: 2.8%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.1%Lucas Ropek: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading4.1%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.4%Lucas Ropek: 3.1%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote4.4%This article: 4.4%Lucas Ropek: 0.9%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection4.4%This article: 4.4%Lucas Ropek: 4.2%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice4.4%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 2.1%Lucas Ropek: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Lucas Ropek: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 21.4%Lucas Ropek: 4.2%TechCrunch: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…21.4%

701 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker20%attributed speech564writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMeta • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageMeta • 35 words • 0.0% coverageMeta • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMeta • 26 words • 100.0% coverageMeta • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Meta

78%flagged-word coverage
137 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.0 ptsWriter: 22.0%Meta: 19.0%19.0%Unattributed Quote-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Meta: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Meta: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Meta: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Meta: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.