- Instagram users reported difficulties unfollowing the newly transitioned POTUS and VP accounts, with some hashtags like #jan6 and #democrat temporarily hidden, sparking concerns about platform biases.
- Meta attributed these issues to standard transitions and technical glitches while defending its recent decision to relax content moderation and fact-checking standards.
- Critics warn that Meta’s opaque algorithms and policy changes, coupled with the reintroduction of political content, may signal a shift in favor of right-leaning narratives.
This week, Instagram users experienced a startling disruption in their feeds as the official accounts of President Donald Trump (@POTUS) and Vice President JD Vance (@VP) appeared prominently, often as suggested follows. The timing, coinciding with their inauguration, left users questioning the platform’s impartiality. Reports surfaced of users struggling to unfollow these accounts, requiring multiple attempts, while some hashtags, including #jan6 and #democrat, appeared temporarily hidden or banned.
Meta, Instagram’s parent company, attributed the visibility of the POTUS and VP accounts to standard protocol during presidential transitions. They explained that these accounts, along with their followers, were handed over to the incoming administration as per tradition, with the previous administration’s accounts archived. As for the issues with unfollowing and hidden hashtags, Meta claimed they were the result of glitches or errors that affected a range of hashtags, not exclusively political ones.
This controversy emerged just weeks after Meta announced sweeping changes to its platforms. CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed plans to eliminate fact-checking teams and relax content moderation standards, citing a need to address perceived bias and censorship. The move signaled a shift in Meta’s stance, with political and news content set to regain prominence in users’ feeds after years of being deprioritized. Many saw these changes as an attempt to align more closely with the Trump administration.
Despite Meta’s explanations, skepticism persists. The company maintains that no deliberate action was taken to boost certain accounts or suppress others, yet the opaque nature of its algorithms fuels mistrust. Without transparency, users and watchdogs struggle to independently verify such claims, amplifying concerns about potential biases in how content is surfaced or suppressed.
This incident has reignited debates over the power social media platforms wield in shaping public discourse. With Meta’s changes coinciding with a new political administration, critics warn that even small algorithmic tweaks can significantly influence visibility and engagement, deepening fears about the rightward swing of these platforms.
