Lawsuit Against Meta Asks Whether Facebook Users Have the Right to Control Their Feeds Using External Tools

AP Technology Writer – Do social media users have the right to control what they see — or don’t see — in their feeds?

A lawsuit filed against Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. argues that a federal law often used to protect internet companies from liability also allows people to use outside tools to take control of their feed — even if that means shutting down it totally.

Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute filed suit Wednesday against Meta Platforms on behalf of an Amherst professor who wants to launch a tool that allows users to unfollow all content served to them by the Meta Platforms algorithm. Facebook.

The tool, called Unfollow Everything 2.0, is a browser extension that allows Facebook users to unfollow friends, groups and pages and empty their news feed – the stream of posts, photos and videos that can keep them scrolling indefinitely. The idea is that without this constant, addictive stream of content, people might use it less. If the past is any indication, Meta won’t like the idea.

A UK developer, Luis Barclay, launched a similar tool called Unfollow Everything, but took it offline in 2021, fearing a lawsuit after receiving a cease and desist letter and a lifetime ban from Facebook by Meta, then called Facebook Inc.

With Wednesday’s lawsuit, Ethan Zuckerman, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, is trying to beat Meta in the legal coup to avoid being sued by the social media giant over the browser extension.

“The reason it’s worth challenging Facebook on this is that right now we have very little control as users over how we use these networks,” Zuckerman said in an interview. “We basically get all the controls that Facebook wants. And this is actually very different from how the Internet has worked historically.” Think about email, which allows people to use different email clients, or different web browsers, or anti-tracking software for people who don’t want to be tracked.

Meta did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on Wednesday,

The lawsuit filed in California federal court centers on a provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is often used to protect Internet companies from liability for things posted on their websites. A separate provision, however, provides immunity to software developers who create tools that “filter, screen, permit, or prohibit content that the provider or user considers obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” ”

The lawsuit, in other words, asks the court to determine whether Facebook users’ news feeds fall into the category of objectionable material that they should be able to filter out to take advantage of the platform.

“Maybe CDA 230 gives us the right to build tools to improve your experience on Facebook or other social networks and give you more control over them,” said Zuckerman, who teaches public policy, communications and information at Amherst. “And you know what? If we can establish that, it could really open up a new sphere of investigation and a new sphere of development. You could see people starting to build tools to make social media work better for us.”

Although Facebook allows users to manually unfollow everything, the process can be complicated with hundreds or even thousands of friends, groups and businesses that people tend to follow.

Zuckerman also wants to study how turning off the news feed affects people’s experience on Facebook. Users would have to agree to participate in the study – using the browser tool does not automatically enroll participants.

“Social media companies can design their products however they want, but users have the right to control their experience on social media platforms, including by blocking content they consider harmful,” said Ramya Krishnan, senior attorney at the Knight Institute. “Users do not need to accept Facebook as it is given to them. The same statute that immunizes Meta from liability for its users’ speech gives users the right to decide what they see on the platform.”