• OtterOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The potential issues:

    • this was enabled for everyone by default instead of being opt-in
    • It’s hard to tell what will be blocked by this. “Activism” is political. Calling out tech oligopolies is “political”, and by extension advertising the fediverse could be “political”. This could be an easy way to hide content that harms Meta or its partners.
    • It encourages users and content creators to avoid controversial topics. It’s hard to fix issues in our communities if we don’t talk about them

    The fact that Meta is doing this makes me suspicious. Here in Canada, they booted off news organizations and now instead of reputable organizations sharing what’s happening, that niche is filled by other… content.

    I personally try to avoid any suggested content and only use my subscriptions. For those who want to change it back:

    change the setting, users can navigate to Instagram’s menu for “settings and activity” in their profiles, where they can update their “content preferences.” On this menu, “political content” is the last item under a list of “suggested content” controls that allow users to set preferences for what content is recommended in their feeds.

    There is one good side. While we can’t see the algorithms used to classify content as “political”, creators can check their own status and publicize issues:

    Meta’s blog noted that “professional accounts on Instagram will be able to use Account Status to check their eligibility to be recommended based on whether they recently posted political content. From Account Status, they can edit or remove recent posts, request a review if they disagree with our decision, or stop posting this type of content for a period of time, in order to be eligible to be recommended again.”

    • @9point6
      link
      English
      198 months ago

      This is a huge red flag and people who are initially pleased to read this should take pause.

      Meta are getting to decide what content you hide from you based on their definition of politics and enabling this for users by default (many users will never change this setting). Their definition of what constitutes as “politics” will not be one shared with a regular person.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      They didn’t “boot” news sites. News sites got a law passed that completely broke the internet by requiring sites to pay for the privilege of doing them the service of linking to their news content. You can’t pretend they’re stealing from you by displaying the content you explicitly ask them to display, then also say they’re fucking you over by not displaying your content in response to you claiming that linking to it is stealing from you.

      The only issue with this (outside of the fact that it’s still on a Facebook service, which means it’s impossible for it to be justifiable to use) is that the setting isn’t “zero” instead of “limited”.

    • SaltySalamander
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The fact that Meta is doing this makes me suspicious. Here in Canada, they booted off news organizations

      You can blame Canada for this, not Meta. Canadian news orgs tried to extort them, Meta said no thanks, as is their right.