Georgina Wilson Reveals Five Instagram Design Myths That Could Be Ruining Your Home

Instagram may be full of dreamy interiors, but architect Georgina Wilson says what works on social media doesn’t always translate to real life.

As one of Australia’s most-followed architects, Wilson has seen first-hand how influencer-led design shapes—and sometimes sabotages—our homes.

From impractical layouts to fast-fashion finishes, here are five biggest myths she’s busting.

1. Form Over Function

That statement pendant light might rake in likes, but can you actually open your kitchen drawers?

Many influencer-inspired designs prioritise visual drama over practicality, sacrificing comfort, efficiency and long-term usability in the process.

2. Set Design, Not Home Design

Fluted cabinetry, curved walls, oversized arches—they look great in a styled shot but aren’t always built to last.

Wilson warns that these trends are often “set pieces,” designed for impact rather than daily living.

3. The DIY Myth

With time-lapses and tutorials galore, influencers make renovations look deceptively easy.

But Wilson says DIY often results in costly missteps: “Designing a great space requires experience, technical skill and planning—there are no shortcuts.”

4. Trends Over Timelessness

What’s hot today will feel tired tomorrow. Chasing viral aesthetics can lead to expensive regrets, especially if it means compromising on layout, materials, or functionality.

“Good design should outlast any algorithm,” says Wilson.

5. Influencer Projects Are Often Free – Yours Won’t Be

Wilson points out a crucial reality: most influencer renovations are heavily subsidised by brand partnerships.

Homeowners, meanwhile, foot the full bill—sometimes for design choices that don’t serve them long-term.

Social media is a powerful source of inspiration, but Wilson urges homeowners to think beyond the grid.

“A truly great home isn’t built for the ‘after’ photo,” she says. “It’s built to be lived in—comfortably, beautifully, every day.”

“Call us optimists. Call us dreamers. Call us whatever the hell you want, but we’re betting on people, and we like those odds. The future is for everyone.”

That ad copy is from the voice-over of a July Meta Platforms META -3.38%.

spot that’s been part of a public-relations blitz to position Meta as the humanist AI company. The message was undercut by the ad’s inclusion of David Bowie’s “Five Years,” a brooding 1972 song about an impending apocalypse. But this week CEO Mark Zuckerberg left no ambiguity, publishing a 6,500-word manifesto—about 10 times the length of this newsletter—with a title that echoed the ad: “The Future is for Everyone.”

That seems to be Meta’s new tagline. In light of sinking public opinion and the company’s thousands of lawsuits from states, school districts, parents, and users, Meta’s public relations have been defensive. This push represents a return to offense, with a chance to distinguish Meta’s approach to AI from other labs like OpenAI, Anthropic, or SpaceX SPCX +9.65%.

“It is surprising that the discourse from many developing AI is so filled with doom,” Zuckerberg wrote. “I do not understand why anyone who believes that AI will eliminate most jobs and much of humanity’s relevance would rush to build that future.”

Zuckerberg frames what sort of future we build with AI as the central issue of our time. “We believe that delivering superintelligence to everyone is the way to answer this question,” he says. “This has the potential to begin a new era of personal empowerment where individuals can use this powerful new capability to reach their full potential, pursue their interests, and improve their lives and the world more than ever before.”

The flood of words belies the situation on the ground in mid-2026. Americans, at least, have a love-hate affair with social media. A November Pew Research Center poll reported that 71% of U.S. adults used Facebook, and 51% used Instagram. Worldwide, 3.6 billion people use at least one Meta app every day.

But in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in July and August, 61% of respondents said they wanted more government oversight of social media, and two-thirds supported laws to keep children under 16 years old off the platforms. When it comes to Meta in particular, in the 2026 Axios Harris 100, an annual poll about corporate reputation, Meta placed 96th out of 100. It’s only above two other social media companies, Chinese ultracheap retailer Temu, and Spirit Airlines, a defunct air carrier. Regarding ethics, Meta came in last, and it was only ahead of TikTok in trust.

The steady drip of headlines in the teen social media trials isn’t helping. Last week, Meta lost a judgment in New Mexico state court that raised their liability in that relatively small jurisdiction to nearly $1 billion dollars. On Wednesday, jury selection began for a federal case with four states suing Meta over addictive product design, and false marketing that said its platforms were safe for teenagers. In July, Meta claimed that the states are asking for a total of $1.4 trillion in damages, in addition to design changes in the apps. This is part of a multidistrict litigation, where thousands of federal trials with social media defendants are coordinated in Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ district courthouse in Oakland, Calif.

There is a separate such group of thousands of cases in California state court, mostly with individual plaintiffs. The steady drip of bad headlines from the courts will continue unless Meta decides to settle en masse.

Meanwhile, in the second quarter, Meta booked “$2.40 billion of charges related to legal proceedings,” according to its quarterly filing. That may be just the beginning.

Zuckerberg spent 6,500 words getting his utopian message out, but I can sum it up in two: Trust us. The evidence is that Meta has a long way to go to win back that trust.