There's a legitimate debate to be had over the consequences of the 1994 crime bill and whether or not is was a good policy. The point is that Instagram (and every other social media platform that puts these disclaimers on their posts) is not merely moderating content any more. They're actively participating in politics and trying to persuade their users to feel a certain way about controversial topics. Which is to say, they're really no different than Parler or any of the big box media outlets.

I think this is a contested claim and you can find prominent academics on the other side talking about

a. how federal action modeled action for states, including substantial incentive schemes for incarceration (indeed that is how almost every Federal bill works)

b. how the rate of incarceration given the crime being committed increased post-crime bill.

I think it is a discussion to be had, not something to be a priori fact-checked as "False."

The 1994 crime bill included a number of provisions that increased incarceration at the state level, such as:

> $9.7 billion in funding for prisons, [including] incentive grants to ... qualifying states that enforced mandatory sentencing of 85% of a person's sentence conviction,

> [eliminating federal grants for] lower-income prison inmates to receive college educations during their term of imprisonment,

and funding for 100,000 more police officers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law