Instagram's Decision to Limit Political Content Sparks Debate

Earlier this year, Instagram launched an initiative to automatically limit political content recommendations for users who have not chosen to follow the accounts posting such content.

The company, owned by Meta, has put in place a setting to automatically limit the political content being fed to users. This will also notably affect Threads accounts tied to individual users. While some users were relieved to see less political content in their feeds, others were outraged, believing that Instagram's decision to limit this content restricts essential political discourse during a year when pivotal elections are taking place in the U.S. and other countries.

After political content on the app was subdued, a study found that some prominent and progressive Instagram accounts saw their reach decline by as much as 65% in the months following the change. For example, viewership data was gathered for five of these prominent accounts that had a total of 13.5 million followers between them. This group included those who follow Hilary Clinton as well as GLAAD, the LGBTQ+ activist group. Due to Instagram’s change in political content visibility, significantly fewer users were exposed to important topics such as voting information, reproductive rights, and advocacy for marginalized groups.

Those who favor the update see it as a way to reduce algorithmic bias, providing a neutral platform for all users. In their eyes, perhaps users would only be exposed to content worthy of their time while limiting content designed to rile them up. The decision to limit political content was well-received by many, as it was seen as a way to empower users to choose whether or not to engage in political discussions, rather than feeling overwhelmed by constant, stressful content from all sides. Other experts who support the update see it as a way to combat misinformation. This school of thought believes that If users' feeds are less cluttered, it could lead to a more positive environment by reducing the stress associated with constant exposure to political debates.

Those that do not support the update say that Meta’s definition of political content is too broad, covering a wide range of topics including law and social issues. Users saw an increase in comments being hidden, captions being deleted, and hashtags being suppressed. It does not help matters that moderation decisions have become noticeably more difficult to appeal ever since the update was made. Restricting or removing accounts that post political content could worsen echo chambers on social media, isolating users within their ideological bubbles and limiting exposure to diverse perspectives.

Users have the ability to control the political content they see and can manage the changes from the update by finding their own balance. Even though the content moderation feature is enabled by default, it can be changed easily within Instagram’s settings, albeit only on the mobile version. Users can access their personal profile, tap the three-line icon in the top right corner to enter "Settings and activity," scroll down to the "What you see" section, and then select "Content preferences."

Political content can then be either limited from people the user does not follow or this content can have no limit put on it at all. If user preferences are balanced, freedom of expression can be exercised through ongoing dialogue and scrutiny.