- Meta’s anti-politics stance may lead to more confusion about what is considered “political” on the platform, as seen in a recent case with an altered image of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
- The Oversight Board raised concerns about Meta’s over-enforcement of its policies, particularly in relation to satire and political speech, which could restrict users’ ability to discuss important world events.
- Governments are still trying to make Meta pay news publishers, with Australia considering revisions to its Media Bargaining Code to force platforms like Meta and Google to pay a tax to fund public interest journalism.
Meta’s Anti-Politics Stance: A Potential Headache?
Meta’s anti-politics stance could end up causing as many headaches as allowing political discussion, as questions arise about what’s considered “political” on the platform and how it impacts user experience.
This week, Meta’s independent Oversight Board raised concerns about the company’s over-enforcement of posting rules, highlighting a case where a post was removed and later restored due to a misinterpretation of Meta’s policies.
Read more about domain investments and domains at Teat.ai.