Meta‘s recent announcement of changes in sharing political content has stirred a strong response from users. Adam Mosseri, Meta’s head of Instagram, explained that political content will no longer be recommended on Threads and excluded from Explore, Reels, and Suggested Users on Instagram. However, users who actively follow political accounts will still have access to the content. The announcement has sparked a wave of criticism, with users expressing their discontent on Threads. Many argue that the move is unnecessary, calling for the preservation of their right to decide the content they see. The definition of “”political content”” is a point of contention, with users questioning whether expressing opinions on democracy, elections, or issues qualifies.
A significant concern raised by users is the perceived suppression of free speech, with some labeling Meta’s decision as censorship. Users speculate about the potential impact on the organic traffic of accounts discussing political issues. Some users suggest that an opt-out option would be fairer than the announced opt-in. The discontent extends to questioning Meta’s role in shaping discourse, with users pondering whether the algorithm should organically remove political content without explicit user intervention. The situation also brings attention to broader criticisms of big tech companies, including Meta, for selectively censoring content and influencing real-life events. Human rights organizations have criticized Meta for censorship in certain geopolitical contexts, raising questions about the company’s responsibility in moderating content.
