The Verge56%

Meta turns off the Instagram feature that let users make AI deepfakes of public accounts 23%

By Jay Peters31%

7/10/2026, 4:49:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.7% saturation with 155 hits. Analysis detected 669 faulty-reasoning hits from 489 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.2% and a BS Rank of 23% (16,931 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.40% of the article peer group.

Meta turns off the Instagram feature that let users make AI deepfakes of public accounts 
The feature, announced on Tuesday, received significant backlash. 
Jul 10, 2026, 11:49 PM UTC 
Jay Peters is a senior reporter covering technology, gaming, and more. 
He joined The Verge in 2019 after nearly two years at Techmeme. 
Following significant backlash, Meta is turning off the feature it announced this week that let users generate AI images based on content from public Instagram accounts just by tagging them. 
The feature, as originally set up, meant that content from any public Instagram account could be used in AI creations without the account owner’s permission. 
“Earlier this week, we announced that one way for people to generate images in Meta AI is by @-mentioning public Instagram accounts that they want to reference,” Meta says in an update to a blog post about its new Muse Image AI model. 
“Our intent was to provide a useful creative tool and to give people control over whether their public content could be referenced in this way. 
We’ve heard the feedback that this feature missed the mark, so it’s no longer available.” 
Meta did let you opt out by digging through settings before turning off the feature entirely, but the feature still drew major criticism. 
“Not only does this obviously erode our rights to our own likeness… but it is an obvious tool for #sextortion and other scammers!” 
Haley McNamara, executive director and chief strategy officer of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, said earlier on Friday . 
“Pursuing high-risk design & then putting the onus on individuals to jump through hoops to opt out is unacceptable.” 
The Screen Actors Guild recommended that its members opt out of the feature and spelled out instructions on how to do so . 
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates. 
I spent a week using the Trump phone  it sucks 
Polestar owners left ‘holding the bag’ after EV brand pulls out of the US 
The ChatGPT browser is already dead 
Netflix reportedly considers adding always-on channels 
Xreal’s new AR glasses are way cheaper and almost just right 
Advertiser Content From 
This is the title for the native ad 
Nvidia’s biggest RAM supplier just had a trillion-dollar debut on Wall Street 
Spotify will let you fine-tune your weekly Release Radar playlist 
Netflix is turning into YouTube 
Anker’s 3-in-1 Qi2.2 charging station is $95 off 
I’m filling in at The Verge for 6 weeks. 
Ask me anything! 
Terrence O'Brien Jul 10 
Sheena Vasani Jul 10 
Dominic Preston Jul 10 
Apple sues OpenAI for allegedly stealing hardware secrets 
The FCC is cracking down on DJI tech that dodged the foreign drone ban 
Empathy for the optimizers 
ICE is threatening to deport witnesses of its latest shooting 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.1%Jay Peters: 2.7%The Verge: 3.6%Confirmation Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.6%The Verge: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Jay Peters: 2.5%The Verge: 3.8%Availability Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.6%The Verge: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.3%The Verge: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.9%The Verge: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Jay Peters: 3.0%The Verge: 6.2%Framing Effect11.9%This article: 4.7%Jay Peters: 0.3%The Verge: 0.9%Loss Aversion4.7%This article: 3.1%Jay Peters: 0.4%The Verge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.2%The Verge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Jay Peters: 3.5%The Verge: 4.0%Optimism Bias2.2%This article: 3.3%Jay Peters: 2.2%The Verge: 2.4%Pessimism Bias3.3%This article: 31.7%Jay Peters: 7.5%The Verge: 9.7%Negativity Bias31.7%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 1.1%The Verge: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.2%The Verge: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.2%The Verge: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.2%The Verge: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 2.8%The Verge: 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Jay Peters: 1.7%The Verge: 1.8%Recency Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.7%The Verge: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.4%The Verge: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.2%Jay Peters: 4.0%The Verge: 4.0%Appeal to Authority7.2%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.3%The Verge: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.5%The Verge: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.1%The Verge: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.2%Jay Peters: 4.5%The Verge: 6.8%Hasty Generalization8.2%This article: 1.2%Jay Peters: 0.3%The Verge: 0.2%Red Herring1.2%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.6%Jay Peters: 3.6%The Verge: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion8.6%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.7%The Verge: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 1.8%The Verge: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.9%Jay Peters: 0.9%The Verge: 0.8%Burden of Proof3.9%This article: 5.1%Jay Peters: 0.3%The Verge: 0.3%Appeal to Nature5.1%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.3%The Verge: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.5%Jay Peters: 4.0%The Verge: 3.6%Anecdotal4.5%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.7%Jay Peters: 2.2%The Verge: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.7%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.4%The Verge: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Jay Peters: 2.6%The Verge: 2.6%Unattributed Quote4.7%This article: 4.7%Jay Peters: 1.9%The Verge: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection4.7%This article: 2.2%Jay Peters: 8.8%The Verge: 10.8%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.3%The Verge: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 1.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jay Peters: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Jay Peters: 5.3%The Verge: 4.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.9%

489 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers30%attributed speech344writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMeta • 43 words • 0.0% coverageMeta • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMeta • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageHaley McNamara • 20 words • 0.0% coverageHaley McNamara • 19 words • 0.0% coverageScreen Actors Guild • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Haley McNamara

49%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words27% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -18.3 ptsWriter: 18.3%Haley McNamara: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Haley McNamara: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Haley McNamara: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Haley McNamara: 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.