📲 Is Meta’s Anti-Politics Stance a Sustainable Strategy?
News #Insta
🔹 Meta's anti-politics stance could end up causing it as many headaches as allowing political discussion, with more questions being raised as to how the company decides what's "political" and what's not, and how that impacts the user experience. This week, Meta's independent Oversight Board has raised questions about Meta's over-enforcement of its posting rules, after a post which included this image was removed from Facebook:
🔹 As per the Oversight Board:
🔹 In the summary of its findings, the Oversight Board notes the "overenforcement of Meta's
Bullying and Harassment policy with respect to satire and political speech", and the dangers that such may pose in the context of an election, "as it may lead to the excessive removal of political speech and undermine the ability to criticize government officials and political candidates, including in a sarcastic manner." So, in this case, Meta didn't specifically note that it was removed due to its clampdown on political speech. But the concern is that Meta's anti-politics push could restrict users' ability to discuss world events, and politics specifically, because of Meta's ramped up enforcement of such content.
🔹 The same also applies to Meta's Twitter competitor Threads, which has also been widely criticized for avoiding political content. With the U.S. election a key focus at present, just days out from the poll, Threads should logically feature a lot more political content, in reflection of the news of the day, but Meta's stated aversion to such is restricting real-time discussion of some of the most critical news of the moment. That's likely to impede Threads growth as a key news channel, which was central to Twitter's appeal. Under Elon Musk, Twitter (now X), has leaned further into right-wing conspiracy theories and support for the Republican agenda, which has left many seeking an alternative source of up-to-the-minute coverage of the latest political news. Threads, at this stage, is failing on this front, which could eventually force Meta to re-think its suppression of political content, at least at Threads context. There's also a question, again, as to what Meta's considers to be "political", with the company remaining vague in its descriptions of its parameters.
Indeed, some Threads users have complained of being censored in the app for posting anything at all about political candidates.
💻 Source
🛡 Powered by V3V Ventures
News #Insta
🔹 Meta's anti-politics stance could end up causing it as many headaches as allowing political discussion, with more questions being raised as to how the company decides what's "political" and what's not, and how that impacts the user experience. This week, Meta's independent Oversight Board has raised questions about Meta's over-enforcement of its posting rules, after a post which included this image was removed from Facebook:
🔹 As per the Oversight Board:
"In August 2024, a Facebook user posted an altered picture based on the poster for the 1994 comedy film "Dumb and Dumber." In the altered image, the faces of the original actors are replaced by the U.S. presidential candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. The content was posted with a caption that includes the emojis "???? ♂️????????." Meta initially removed the user's post from Facebook under its Bullying and Harassment Community Standard, which prohibits "derogatory sexualized photoshop or drawings. After the user appealed Meta's decision to remove their content to the Board, the Board brought this case to the company's attention. Meta then determined its removal was incorrect, restoring the post to Facebook."
🔹 In the summary of its findings, the Oversight Board notes the "overenforcement of Meta's
Bullying and Harassment policy with respect to satire and political speech", and the dangers that such may pose in the context of an election, "as it may lead to the excessive removal of political speech and undermine the ability to criticize government officials and political candidates, including in a sarcastic manner." So, in this case, Meta didn't specifically note that it was removed due to its clampdown on political speech. But the concern is that Meta's anti-politics push could restrict users' ability to discuss world events, and politics specifically, because of Meta's ramped up enforcement of such content.
🔹 The same also applies to Meta's Twitter competitor Threads, which has also been widely criticized for avoiding political content. With the U.S. election a key focus at present, just days out from the poll, Threads should logically feature a lot more political content, in reflection of the news of the day, but Meta's stated aversion to such is restricting real-time discussion of some of the most critical news of the moment. That's likely to impede Threads growth as a key news channel, which was central to Twitter's appeal. Under Elon Musk, Twitter (now X), has leaned further into right-wing conspiracy theories and support for the Republican agenda, which has left many seeking an alternative source of up-to-the-minute coverage of the latest political news. Threads, at this stage, is failing on this front, which could eventually force Meta to re-think its suppression of political content, at least at Threads context. There's also a question, again, as to what Meta's considers to be "political", with the company remaining vague in its descriptions of its parameters.
Indeed, some Threads users have complained of being censored in the app for posting anything at all about political candidates.
💻 Source
🛡 Powered by V3V Ventures