A recent study conducted by Accountable Tech, a social media integrity nonprofit, has shed light on the impact of Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to reduce the spread of political content on Instagram.
Bloomberg reports that the study, which spanned a period of approximately three months following the implementation of the new policy in early March, focused on five prominent Instagram accounts with a combined following of 13.5 million users. These accounts, including those of Hillary Clinton and LGBT activist group GLAAD, frequently share leftist political content. Although the study focused on five large leftist accounts, the same rules are dampening conservatives on Instagram, which already have been the target of Zuckerberg’s censorship for years.
Researchers at Accountable Tech gathered viewership data from the Instagram Insights pages of the participating accounts throughout the study period. The findings revealed a staggering 65 percent drop in the average weekly reach per post across the five accounts over the 10-week duration.
Meta’s decision to limit the reach of political content through its recommendation algorithms has drawn criticism from various quarters. While Meta executives maintain that users will still see political posts from accounts they follow, critics argue that the company’s definition of “political” lacks clarity and may stifle important information from activists, news organizations, and individual creators during a crucial global election year.
Zach Praiss, Accountable Tech’s campaigns director who spearheaded the research, emphasized the importance of Instagram as a platform for people to engage in meaningful discussions about issues that matter to them. “Millions of people are using it on a daily basis for many, many hours,” Praiss stated. “It’s a place where I think it’s important for people to have the ability to talk about what matters to them in a safe, productive manner.”
Meta has increasingly distanced itself from politics in recent years, following accusations of amplifying misinformation and partisan bias. In a February blog post, the company announced updates to Instagram and Threads, describing political content as “potentially related to things like laws, elections, or social topics.”
Instagram head Adam Mosseri, in a June interview with Bloomberg, defended the decision, stating, “We don’t think it’s our place to amplify political news.” He cited examples such as abortion, the war in Gaza, and the US presidential election, adding, “We don’t think it’s our place to show you a hot take on a political issue from an account you do not follow and therefore you did not ask for.”
While a Meta spokesperson suggested that other factors may have contributed to the decline in views, the study’s participants, primarily left-leaning accounts, expressed concerns about the suppression of information on social injustice. Ky Polanco, co-founder of @Feminist, an Instagram account with nearly 6 million followers, observed a significant drop in reach, particularly for posts discussing abortion rights.
Polanco fears that Meta’s policy may hinder the dissemination of crucial news and information related to women’s rights, voting, mental health, and LGBT communities. “However Meta sees their platform, ultimately the consumers are going to decide how they use the platform,” Polanco remarked. “They should really just give the community what they want versus telling us what we can see.”
Read more at Bloomberg here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
