Instagram is an app where people can share photos and videos. It belongs to a big company called Meta. Some people are worried that Instagram might not be safe for young people, especially teenagers. So, Instagram decided to add a new feature called "Limits" that lets users control who can send them messages and see their posts. This way, they hope to make the app safer for everyone, especially kids. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalist: "Meta's Instagram Expands 'Limits' Feature Amid Criticism Over Teen Safety". It implies that the feature is a direct response to the criticism, when in reality it has been in development for some time and was planned to be released before the controversy.
2. The article fails to provide any concrete evidence or statistics to support the claim that Instagram is unsafe for teens. It relies on anecdotal stories and opinions of experts, which are not sufficient to make a general conclusion about the platform's impact on teen safety.
3. The article mentions Meta's other initiatives to improve child safety on its platforms, but does not explain how effective they have been or provide any data to back up their claims. It also fails to acknowledge that these measures may have unintended consequences or trade-offs for users and creators.
4. The article uses emotional language and tone, such as "increased scrutiny", "hidden content", "suicide", and "eating disorders" to evoke a negative reaction from the readers and create a sense of urgency and AIger. This is manipulative and dishonest, as it does not reflect the reality or complexity of the issue.
5. The article ends with a subscription offer for Benzinga Tech Trends newsletter, which has no relevance to the main topic and seems like a cheap tactic to generate revenue from the readers' interest in the story.

Neutral

The article is reporting on Instagram's decision to expand the "Limits" feature in response to criticism over teen safety. The sentiment of the article is neutral, as it does not express a clear opinion or bias towards Meta or its actions. It simply states the facts and provides some background information on previous steps taken by Meta to address concerns about child safety on its platforms.