Meta will stop recommending political accounts and content from people you don't follow across their products on Instagram, Threads and Facebook (where they banned political recommendations already three years ago).
Here's The Verge: Instagram and Threads will soon recommend less political content and Readwrite: Meta will no longer prompt political content across apps, here's Taylor Lorenz at the WaPo with statements from activists and here's Metas "Transparency Center": Our Approach to Political Content.
Some of my more activistic and journalistic peers are up in arms and speak of "shadowbanning politics", which is nonsense and i'm team Meta on this one.
People are fed up with the news and politics for a reason. The 2010s saw a politication of everything, and people, me included, are sick of it. Every activist i know of preaches "The private is political" which is not only not true but totalitarian thinking. This phrase comes from the 70s feminist fight about domestic violence, when that was legal, and thus, the "private was political" indeed. Today, that phrase makes no sense, except for people who want to dominate your feeds. I guess activists, journalists and politicians aswell as outrage junkies have to fight their culture wars elsewhere, and if your Mastodon-instance doesn't provide the same engagement numbers, well, so be it.
On the other hand, ofcourse, there are pressing issues that need exposure to the wider public, like climate action, and with failing economics in traditional mass media, this move by the (still) largest socmed company ensures that the public is less aware about important topics in need of lively discourse.
From Taylor Lorenz piece:
Isaias Hernandez, a Gen Z content creator who posts on environmentalism, said that the change could lead to voters being less educated during a major election. “Climate policy is a huge factor for a lot of young people voting,” he said. “I think we’re going to lose a large chunk of voters if we’re not able to put climate information out there.”
Edwards, the political strategist, said the changes are likely to have political consequences. “[Meta] is trying to turn the world apolitical, which only helps authoritarian movements, at a time when authoritarian movements are on the rise in Western democracies,” he said.
Then again, if you're interested in politics, just subscribe to the goddamn New York Times or Washington Post or Spiegel or whatever is your prefered outlet. If you need discourse, make a Mastodon instance or launch a Discord. There's a reason why in many bars and pubs, there exists a golden rule: No religion, no politics. And Meta decided, they want to be a pub, not a town hall.
Also, it makes no sense to critizise social media platforms for being divisive and then complain when they make divisive content opt-in.
And it also makes no sense to argue that socmed-recommendations send users down radicalization rabbit holes and then Meta is not doing political recommendations and that's a problem too?
And the same people want nonalgorithmic chronological feeds now insist that their precious political content shows up in the feeds of people who don't follow them?
This like wanting to have a tripple cake and eat it too.
I welcome this move, even when it means less exposure to issues in need of visibility. It's a try to make Meta's socmed into a pub again, with no religion, and no politics. And the totalitarian thinking which views every goddamn topic through the lense of politics is not welcome in that club. Deal with it.
I also suspect Zuckerberg expects a rightwing shitshow on Threads-competitor X during the 2024 election and wants to position Threads as an unpolitical, un-X-ey alternative with a "soft" approach to politics that does not recommend political content, but simply allows following political accounts. Which sounds reasonable to me and might turn out to be a smart move.