This is a letter to the editor, not a feature, not a study, not a manifesto. It's one person's response to other Guardian readers who celebrated deleting Instagram, and it amounts to a single argument: the problem is the user, not the platform, and moderation works if you have rules. John Kirkwood from Sheffield runs a cycling account (@ncnsheffield) for Walk Wheel Cycle Trust volunteers. He follows a personal protocol: no family photos, almost no selfies, immediate blocking of suspicious accounts, and a 15-minute scrolling cap. He reports that Instagram, used this way, is a functional promotional tool for his volunteer group and an occasional source of genuine discovery — he cites @lesbriques, a brickwork photography account, as something that has led him toward real-world travel and human contact. The AA comparison in the opening line is the interesting move. Kirkwood is pushing back against what he sees as abstinence ideology — the idea that the only healthy relationship with Instagram is no relationship at all. His counter-model is controlled use: clear boundaries, purpose-driven posting, time limits. It's the 'I can have two glasses of wine with dinner' argument applied to algorithmic feeds. The problem with the analogy is that it proves less than Kirkwood thinks. AA exists because most people cannot moderate. The entire clinical literature on addictive design — variable-ratio reinforcement schedules, infinite scroll, notification-driven dopamine loops — suggests that Instagram is engineered to defeat exactly the kind of disciplined use Kirkwood describes. That he manages it says something about him, not about the platform. What's quietly useful here is the distinction between Instagram-as-tool and Instagram-as-feed. Kirkwood's cycling account is essentially a community bulletin board with photos. His 15-minute scroll is where the addictive design lives. These are two different products wearing the same logo, and most of the debate conflates them. As a piece of writing, this is a competent, brief letter to the editor — no more, no less. It makes one point clearly, supports it with personal example, and doesn't overstay. It is not trying to be an essay, and grading it as one would be unfair. But it does participate, whether Kirkwood intended it or not, in a much larger cultural conversation about individual agency versus structural design in technology.
