Instagram’s move away from political content raises questions about what is considered ‘political’

Instagram’s recent decision to move the platform away from political content has sparked concerns among content creators and advocacy groups about which issues will be included.

The social media site began implementing changes last month, following previously announced plans to stop recommending political content on Instagram and Threads.

Unless users change their settings, they will no longer see political content on various “recommendation surfaces” such as Explore, Reels. In-Feed recommendations and suggested users.

According to Instagram parent company Meta, this includes content that is likely to be about government or election-related topics, such as posts about laws, elections, or social topics.

Shoshana Weissmann, digital director and policy researcher at the R Street Institute, suggested that Instagram will likely “strike some strange lines” when trying to delineate political and non-political content on the platform.

“There are some things that are explicit, like a campaign, people running for office,” she said. “But there’s a lot in between.”

“I think it’s going to be a bit of an awkward time for creators who aren’t sure how close they need to get to politics for it to be considered political by the algorithm,” Weismann added.

In an open letter to Instagram boss Adam Mosseri, more than 200 creators urged the platform to reverse course and require users to manually opt out of political content, criticizing the Meta definition as “vague.”

“This harms the reach of marginalized people speaking about their own lived experiences on Meta’s platforms, and harms the reach of advocacy work in important areas that have become ‘social topics,’ including climate change, gun violence prevention, justice racial, transgender rights and reproductive rights. freedom to name just a few”, says the letter.

GLAAD, an LGBTQ advocacy group that organized the creators’ open letter with Accountable Tech, called the decision to include social topics as part of political content a “terrible move.”

“The lives of LGBTQ people are simply that, our lives,” said a GLAAD spokesperson. “Our lives are not ‘political content’ or political fodder. This is a dangerous move that not only suppresses LGBTQ voices, but decimates opportunities for LGBTQ people to connect with each other and allies as our content will be excluded from the algorithm.”

Ky Polanco, co-founder and co-executive director of Feminist, an Instagram community serving women, girls, and gender-affirming people, also expressed frustration that reproductive health issues could be considered political.

“Our lives should not be considered political, and I think our right to reproductive health and information is not really political,” Polanco told The Hill. “It’s literally just a human right.”

The content impacted by Instagram’s new approach will likely depend on the keywords the platform chooses to filter, said Jennifer Grygiel, a Syracuse University communications professor and social media expert.

“What is the list of keywords that you are politically filtering for? Is the word LGBT a political word? Is Roe a political word? Grygiel said, referring to Roe v. Wade. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling establishing the right to abortion that was overturned in 2022.

These Instagram decisions could potentially influence billions of people, Grygiel noted.

“It really speaks to the level of power they have over the media consumption of not just Americans, but people around the world, you know, anyone who might have access to these platforms,” they added.

Instagram’s new approach to political content comes as part of a long-term move away from politics on Meta platforms.

Facebook began efforts to reduce political content in early 2021 and “has spent the last few years refining our approach,” Meta said in February, after announcing its decision to extend that approach to Instagram.

“This builds on years of work on how we approached and treated political content based on what people told us they wanted,” Meta spokesman Ryan Daniels said in a statement to The Hill.

“And now, people will be able to control whether they would like this type of post to be recommended to them,” he added.

Weissmann suggested that Meta’s recent shift toward political content may have been informed by increased scrutiny over how its platforms promote certain content.

“I’m sure a real part of this is the regulatory side, that Facebook has been hit for having algorithms that promote extremist content or even just very political content,” Weissmann told The Hill.

“People will spend a lot of money on advertising, but being repeatedly dragged to Congress is also a real cost,” she added.