By John Q. Hosedrinker Instagram will no longer recommend political content to its users. This recent announcement by Meta, the parent company of Instagram, comes as a response to renewed congressional scrutiny of major social media platforms. By default, Instagram and its sister app Threads will not promote political content, unless it is from accounts that users already follow. Users will also have the option to opt-in and see political content recommendations if they choose to do so. Similar controls will be rolled out on Facebook at a later date.
While this move may help combat the spread of misinformation and polarization, it raises some concerns. Who gets to decide what qualifies as political content? Meta will have to define what they consider political, and there is a risk of bias or inconsistencies in their decision-making process. It is essential for them to ensure that this policy is implemented in a fair and unbiased manner.
One effect I hope to see from this change is a reduction in the algorithm-driven content that bombards our feeds. As a user, I want to see posts from the people I actually follow, not an endless stream of ads and recommended content. The constant barrage of unrelated content can be overwhelming and alienating. It’s exhausting to sift through the algorithm-driven recommendations and long for the simple joy of seeing posts from friends, their pets, and their travel adventures.
It is worth mentioning that relying on social media platforms for news has its drawbacks, as the 2016 elections have demonstrated. However, it is disheartening to see social media platforms like Instagram taking a step back from the role they have assumed as a source of news and information. With the decline of traditional journalism, social media platforms have filled that void, albeit with its own set of challenges. The shrinking number of reliable sources of news is a concern, and it’s important for us as users to be critical consumers of information.
Another point of contention is the definition of politics itself. Meta defines political content as potentially related to laws, elections, or social topics. But what about issues like education, LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change? Are these political or not? It’s crucial for Meta to provide clarity on their definition to avoid confusion and potential bias in content curation.
Additionally, the decision to limit political content recommendations on Instagram and Threads but not on Facebook raises concerns. Facebook, with its older and more conservative user base, will continue recommending political content. This discrepancy raises questions about the motivations behind this decision. Are these platforms trying to cater to specific audiences and their preferences? An unbiased approach would ensure that all social media platforms adopt similar policies.
Although this change by Instagram is a step in the right direction, it does not address the root of the problem. The issue lies in the algorithm-driven recommendations that lead users down rabbit holes of radicalized content. It is this underlying problem that needs to be addressed to truly combat misinformation and polarization on social media platforms.
In conclusion, Instagram’s decision to no longer recommend political content to users is an interesting development. While it may help in mitigating the spread of misinformation and polarization, there are concerns about bias, inconsistencies, and the evolving definition of politics. Users must remain critical and discerning while consuming information on social media platforms. Perhaps this change will encourage us to prioritize real connections, authentic content, and meaningful conversations over the algorithm-driven noise that has become synonymous with social media.