In a move that has generated considerable backlash, Adam Mosseri, the leader of Instagram and Threads, declared that the platforms will again promote political content to users. This decision, deemed “embarrassing” and lacking in “bravery” by some users, signifies a notable change in Meta’s strategy regarding political dialogue across its services.

“In accordance with @zuck’s statement yesterday on free expression, beginning this week in the US and extending worldwide over the next few weeks, we’re bringing back political content recommendations on @Threads,” Mosseri detailed in a Threads post. He also mentioned that users will now have three choices to manage the political content they encounter: “less,” “standard” (the default), and “more.” This news follows Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent choice to remove fact-checkers from the platform, replacing them with Community Notes.

Mosseri recognized the intricacy of the matter, saying, “I’ve consistently held the view that showing users political content from accounts they don’t follow isn’t our role. Nevertheless, (1) a significant number of users have shown a distinct interest in this content, and (2) it’s shown to be unfeasible to clearly define what political content is.” He added that the intention is to launch these recommendations in a “responsible and personalized manner,” customizing the experience based on user preferences. Mosseri stressed that Meta intends to seek feedback, learn, and enhance the strategy in the forthcoming months.

This shift in policy emerges just days after Meta disclosed a contentious revision of its content moderation guidelines. The organization is substituting fact-checkers with Community Notes and has eased restrictions on specific disparaging and hateful speech. According to these new standards, declarations such as referring to women as “property,” calling ethnic groups “filth,” or labeling LGBTQ+ individuals as “mentally ill” are no longer explicitly banned. Human rights groups and users have decried these changes, contending that they foster a perilous atmosphere for vulnerable communities.

Critics have pointed out the timing of these decisions, which align with the upcoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump. Trump has persistently opposed content moderation, arguing that it silences conservative voices. However, advocates for rights stress that moderation is aimed at curbing hateful, not conservative, speech. They caution that Meta’s lenient policies could incite real-world violence, particularly as the company has omitted language from its guidelines acknowledging the link between harmful rhetoric and physical harm.

This represents a significant departure from Meta’s previous position on political content. In March 2024, the organization unveiled plans to restrict political content on Instagram and Threads, citing apprehensions about misinformation and disinformation encountered during past elections. While some users appreciated this policy, others criticized it, asserting that platforms like Threads were meant to encourage political dialogue and real-time news, reminiscent of the pre-Elon Musk Twitter era.

At that time, Meta’s initiative to reduce political content was supported by a reliance on fact-checkers and community notes to assure precision. Now, with those protections eliminated, critics are anxious that the platforms might turn into a hotbed for misinformation, especially ahead of a politically charged electoral period. The lack of these safeguards, they contend, leaves users susceptible to receiving and disseminating unchecked information, potentially eroding public dialogue and trust in democratic activities.