Advertisers win, users lose in an Instagram spinoff: Meta could be forced to sell Instagram if a court rules it’s an illegal monopoly.

I don't get what the article is trying to say. It contradicts itself or doesn't make sense.

consists of Instagram, Meta-owned Facebook, and Snapchat

Meta-owned Facebook - contrary to… Meta-owned Instagram? The whole point of the article is that Meta owns both. I'm confused by one being owner-labeled here and the other not, in a listing of services, describing social media landscape.

the now-competing platforms would see more ads – including the same ones on both platforms, which the researchers show could lead to lower click-through rates

Their whole argument is: 1. competition leads to lower ad prices 2. split and lower ad prices leads to more ad impressions/displaying

Lower click-through rates are not a problem for users either.
Will users really see the same ads on both platforms when they did not before?
The article should have better separated advertiser impact from user impact.

What's left is their claim, apparently founded on previous and their own new studies, that users will see more ads. I'm skeptical we can say that now. Especially with why this whole thing is a question in the first place…

This isn’t good news for the FTC, which sued Meta in 2020 on the grounds that it acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp two years later with the intention of using its market power to squash competitors.

Not good news for the FTC? They sue for monopoly and win. What does that have to do with ads and ad impressions? So far off the whole point.

Katz cautions that their study isn’t saying that an Instagram spin-off would necessarily be the wrong solution if Meta is ruled a monopolist. While the effects on digital advertising are significant, “there are other reasons why a Facebook-Instagram separation might be beneficial,” he says. “This includes encouraging other platforms to enter the social media market or investments in other aspects of the user experience, like better privacy protections.”

Last paragraph, or quote, seems to disregard the entire article that came before it.