Politically inclined content on social media platforms Instagram and Threads will be limited, and users will not be recommended such content unless they specifically choose to see it. Meta, the company that owns these two platforms, announced this news on February 9th through a statement on its website. However, it seems that this change has flown somewhat under the radar, leading to questions about how well users are informed about their ability to control the type of content they see on these platforms.
Political content is disseminated in various ways, including through political parties, sponsored posts, and woven into other topics such as laws, human rights, and other societal issues. Euronews Serbia’s interviewees note that these platforms are predominantly used by young people, which increases the risk of them being uninformed if they are not aware of the option to control the content they see. Additionally, the internet is seen as a window to the world, offering access to a wealth of information, but it’s important to remember that these platforms are run by a company with its own business policies that govern decision-making based on market dynamics.
Instagram is quite popular in Serbia, with DataReportal data indicating 6.40 million internet users in the country at the beginning of 2024. Furthermore, Meta’s advertising tools data shows that Instagram had 3.20 million users in Serbia at the start of this year. Meta only allows individuals over 13 years old to use Instagram, making it crucial to emphasize that 51.5% of the eligible audience in Serbia uses the platform.
Many young people seek information through Instagram, abandoning traditional sources like television or newspapers, as highlighted by the KOMS 2018 study showing that 93.5% of young people in Serbia access information through their mobile phones, with 73.2% reading social media posts for news.
Meta’s statement regarding limiting political content explains that they will not proactively recommend political content on Instagram and Threads surfaces, allowing users to choose if they want to see such content. Users can adjust their settings to have political content visible if desired.
Experts interviewed by Euronews Serbia agree that Meta’s move is likely more of a business decision than intentional censorship. Psychologist and founder of the Institute for Digital Communications, Ana Mirković, sees it as a way for Meta to cater to user preferences rather than a freedom-limiting action, aligning with a particular business model. Communication expert Nikola Parun also views it as a profit-oriented strategy on Meta’s part.
Mirković believes the timing of this decision is strategic, given the ongoing election year and significant political processes globally. Parun questions the potential impact on Meta’s ability to offer diverse information with this limitation, suggesting that political content is not exclusive to Instagram and is also accessible on platforms like Telegram with less censorship.
The definition of political content remains vague in Meta’s communication, with Mirković noting that the company’s announcement was somewhat clandestine and may not motivate users to actively seek information.
In conclusion, while Meta’s decision to limit political content on Instagram and Threads may have implications for users’ exposure to diverse opinions, it is ultimately a business-driven move to cater to user preferences. The extent to which this decision impacts access to information and the potential consequences for diverse discourse remain to be seen.
