Person holding an iPhone showing Instagram log in page [Instagram political update]

Katie Storrie

In February, media conglomerate Meta launched a new update limiting the political content recommended to Instagram users. Toeing a fine line between increasing user autonomy and perpetuating algorithmic echo chambers, the reform could have a strong impact on this year’s general election – for better or for worse. 

In a blog post outlining the features of this new update, Meta highlighted their desire to provide a more impartial experience for users: “We won’t proactively recommend content about politics on recommendation surfaces across Instagram and Threads.”

Yet, the update has been surprising for many users, who are only now becoming aware of it two months after its introduction. What could be the reason for this delayed discovery, and how might it impact user engagement?

An Increase In User Autonomy

Following this update, users can regain control over what appears on their Instagram feeds, a move which could be seen to increase user autonomy. The power to engage and interact with the content of their choosing now lies firmly in the consumer’s hands.

Instagram, widely regarded as a platform for creativity, allows people to share, influence and interact with their followers in a vibrant and wholesome way. Limiting political content on users’ feeds may enhance the social media experience by fostering more meaningful interactions among users and their chosen networks. It also allows people to immerse themselves in topics that resonate with their interests, without the worry of political content interfering with their engagement across the app.

At the end of the day, should it not be up to the user to choose what and who they interact with?

Many people would argue that political content should not be a focal point of social media, especially if people do not want to interact with it. It can be harmful by misleading people’s views, especially if the information itself is misleading or spread without a reliable source.

The political influence of Instagram and other social media platforms is currently a hot topic amongst users, as it could have huge consequences on the general election due to take place at the end of this year. In this light, the update can be seen as a positive, as it ultimately reduces the risk of users encountering inflammatory or potentially misleading political content.

Intensifying The Echo Chamber

Yet, others fear that this update could intensify the impact of filter bubbles and echo chambers – terms used to discern how algorithms recommend content that reinforces a user’s pre-held beliefs. The algorithm limits the user’s exposure to alternative viewpoints, and Instagram’s recent update reifies this effect.

Many have argued that this update will limit people’s access to important political information including polls, updates and debates – resources that will be essential when preparing the public for the upcoming general election. Users have highlighted how these platforms can be used to expose the public to new perspectives and information, and how Meta’s update threatens this utility. Instead of ushering in alternative voices, the update threatens to close the door on such perspectives.

“Instead of ushering in alternative voices, the update threatens to close the door on such perspectives”

The echo chambers and filter bubbles that could be strengthened by this update make it harder for users to form diverse perspectives on (inter)national politics, a concerning prospect given that social media is an increasingly preferred news source.

Critics also fear the update’s impact on the platform’s news agenda. Social media has become a pivotal part of our lives, a tool for information regarding worldwide events, news and campaigns. Some argue that the update will allow for certain international events to be wrongly subdued. Indeed, in an article published by Time, author Chad De Guzman argued that Meta is “actively muzzling civic action” by introducing this update.

Opting Out: Is It Enough?

Instagram has introduced further updates, stating in a subsequent blog post: “If people still want to see this type of political content on Threads and Instagram recommendation surfaces, there will be a control for people to choose to see it.”

By allowing for an opt-in and out service, users can determine how much political content is shown on their feed.

Instagram has further stressed that it will not stop people from interacting with the political content of pages that they have already followed.

@seansvv

The GramGram is Limiting Political Content… This Is How You Can Fix That #news #termsandconditions #policy #edutok #discourse

♬ original sound – SEAN

That being said, a lot of people are still unaware of the original update, meaning they are far less likely to know of the opt-out service. This begs the question: should Meta have made this more clear?

It seems puzzling that Instagram chose not to publicly announce its update. Users are still only just discovering the changes, and the conglomerate’s lack of communication has sparked confusion among consumers. To save face in the wake of a controversial update, Instagram chose to usher these changes in under the radar. Yet, in their bid to maintain user satisfaction, they may have jeopardised their confidence.

Perhaps this secrecy was instead Instagram’s attempt to maintain impartiality vis-à-vis the spread of political content on the platform. However, by choosing to keep the update quiet, the opinions of their user base may have just swung the other way.

READ NEXT:

Featured image courtesy of Solen Fayissa on Unsplash. No changes were made to this image. Image licence found here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *