Her frustration is a product of a change of heart by #Meta CEO Mark #Zuckerberg. In 2021, he began pulling back on political #content on #Facebook, after years of being accused by #Republicans of favoring #Democrats. [coward] The hatchet fell on #Instagram this year. In a Feb blog post, Meta said it would no longer “proactively recommend content about #politics,” including topics “potentially related to things like #laws, #elections, or #social topics.”
Translation: #Meta tightened the reins over what to put in your #feed & Explore tab, specifically from accounts you don’t already follow.
As part of the shift, #Instagram also opted everyone into a new #setting to have it recommend less #political#content from accounts you don’t follow. It did NOT alert users to this inside the Instagram #app. (If you don’t want a #sanitized feed on Instagram, #Facebook or #Threads, instructions for how to change your #settings below)
#Meta says it continues to run a program to point users to official information about registering & #voting. But it thinks the majority of Americans want less #politics on #SocialMedia. …most of us don’t want political vitriol or Russian #disinformation — but that’s not the same as respectful conversation. And Meta has complete control over 3 of the most widely used tools for [#online] self-expression. #tech#internet#censorship
“As we’ve said for years, people have told us they want to see less #politics overall while still being able to engage w/political #content on our #platforms if they want to — & that’s exactly what we’ve been doing,” #Meta spox Corey Chambliss said…
[Remember]…in 2011 when #Zuckerberg live-streamed an interview w/Pres #Obama that explored how #SocialMedia would contribute to #democracy. “What #Facebook allows us to do is make sure this isn’t just a one-way conversation,” Obama said… #tech#news
& when people did see Fodor’s political posts, they were nearly 50X as likely to share them… in the #Instagram app. #Zuckerberg has a #FirstAmendment right to make decisions about what to promote on his #platforms. But his #users deserve #transparency about what topics are limited — & how Instagram determines what’s over the line. #Meta declined to comment on the account, saying fluctuations in engagement are common & can ebb & flow for reasons that have nothing to do w/its policy.
In the spring, Fodor joined other #creators in a letter to #Meta, saying it had abandoned its responsibility “to be an open & safe space for dialogue, conversation, & discussion.”
What Fodor finds particularly disempowering is that she doesn’t know when, or how, her work crosses the line.
Creators mostly have to guess, leaving them in a state of what you might call algorithmic anxiety. “It makes people more distrustful of these #SocialMedia platforms,” she says.
But that *definition* could rule out wide swaths of the lived human experience, including people talking about their family in the #MiddleEast or simply being #gay or #trans.
“These are such integral parts of some people’s #identities & livelihoods — #Meta’s gone so far as to limit their capability to talk about who they are & what they care about,” says Zach Praiss, #AccountableTech’s campaigns director, who led the organization’s research.
Fowler also asked #Meta for a list of forbidden keywords, after noticing that Fodor’s use of “#vote” in captions correlated to a steep audience drop. Meta wouldn’t share that, either, saying thousands of factors affect how #content is ranked & recommended. In a statement earlier in the year, Meta defined “#social topics” as “content that identifies a problem that impacts people & is caused by the action or inaction of others, which can include issues like international relations or crime.” #tech
Fowler sent #Meta questions about how it determines what to reduce. It wouldn’t detail what it means by “#political & social issues” beyond content potentially related to “things like #laws, #elections, or #social topics.” How do its automated systems make these calls? Would mentioning Taylor Swift count as political? What about coconuts? Can it make a distinction between voting information & partisan bickering?
Don’t say ‘vote’: How Instagram hides your political posts WaPo #tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler investigates how #Meta’s #Instagram, #Facebook & #Threads suppress #content related to the #election. Even discussing how to #vote isn’t safe. …Fowler shows exactly how #democracy dies on Instagram.
When I was a sociology teacher, the question that always got posed around tech issues was whether technologies can ever be inherently bad. It's the wrong question. The real question is how the unequal distributions of power in each society where the tech might be used can be made worse by the intro of the tech.
"Efforts to protect neurological data have proliferated in recent years, as electronic devices available directly to consumers become capable of capturing medical-grade brain data similar to what neurologists would use to diagnose patients.
Experts at the Neurorights Foundation and other groups say sensitive data could be used to decode users' mental states without their permission.
Earlier in the year, the Neurorights Foundation released a report analyzing the privacy policies of 30 consumer neurotech devices and found major privacy gaps. Half allowed companies to broadly share a user's brain data with third parties."
I’ve been blogging for the Post since 2007 or so. Why bother doing another blog on the side now?
One reason: Writing in a system maintained by my employer for its own purposes shuts me out of many parts of the typical blogging experience, such as playing around with the basic design of the page whenever I like or seeing real-time readership statistics. Plus, the paper just switched to a blogging system that the ombudsman, in a fit of charity, described as “a bafflement to most of us trying to figure it out.”
Another reason: While I’ve enjoyed using my public Facebook page as a blog substitute for sharing my thoughts on journalism, technology and other issues that don’t fit in my work blog, that site isn’t set up for writing longer posts. It’s a pain to find older notes I wrote there. And, more important, it doesn’t seem such a good idea to use one site that I report on all the time as my primary outlet aside from work. I’d rather write those longer notes here, then link to them on Facebook.
Most of these reasons applied a year ago; I don’t know why I didn’t heed them then. In any case, please keep reading. I’ll try not to make this boring.
"On Threads, the topic of “Threads Moderation Failures” is trending. Some users complain their accounts are being deleted or restricted for linking to articles with controversial topics. Meta is currently banning and restricting users on a hair trigger."
"The Social Web Foundation (SWF) has some backing from Meta as well, alongside other major implementors of the ActivityPub protocol, including the social magazine app Flipboard, newsletter platform Ghost, Mastodon, and others. The Ford Foundation has also offered the organization a large grant to get the project started. In total, SWF is closing in on $1 million in financial support."
when i was a child, my mother used this colloquialism: "if you run with the wolves, you howl with the wolves."
fast-forward to present day, in which this same woman tells me, "If she [Kamala Harris] wins you'll get communism. If Trump wins you get freedom. I vote for democracy over communism. Sad world." and then sends me links to... Facebook.
and the app used to message me this swill? Instagram chats.