Do social media users have the right to control what they see (or don’t see) in their feeds?
A lawsuit filed against Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. argues that a federal law often used to protect Internet companies from liability also allows people to use outside tools to take control of their feed, including if that means closing it completely.
Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Meta Platforms on behalf of an Amherst professor who wants to launch a tool that allows users to unfollow all content fed to them by Facebook’s algorithm. .
The tool, called Unfollow Everything 2.0, is a browser extension that would allow Facebook users to unfollow friends, groups and pages and empty their newsfeed – the stream of posts, photos and videos that can keep them scrolling endlessly. . The idea is that without this constant, addictive stream of content, people might use it less. If the past is any indication, Meta won’t be crazy about the idea.
A UK developer, Louis Barclay, launched a similar tool, called Unfollow Everything, but removed it in 2021 for fear of a lawsuit after receiving a cease and desist letter and a lifetime ban from Facebook by Meta, then called Facebook Inc.
With Wednesday’s lawsuit, Ethan Zuckerman, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, is trying to beat Meta in the legal blow to avoid being sued by the social media giant over the browser extension.
“The reason it’s worth challenging Facebook on this is that right now we have very little control as users over how we use these networks,” Zuckerman said in an interview. “Basically, we get whatever control Facebook wants. And that’s actually quite different from how the Internet has worked historically.” Just think about email, which allows people to use different email clients, different web browsers, or anti-tracking software for people who don’t want to be tracked.
Meta declined to comment.
The lawsuit filed in federal court in California focuses on a provision of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is often used to protect Internet companies from liability for what is posted on their sites. . However, a separate clause provides immunity to software developers who create tools that “screen, screen, allow, or reject content that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” . “
In other words, the lawsuit asks the court to determine whether Facebook users’ news feeds fall into the category of objectionable material that they should be able to filter out in order to enjoy the platform.
“Maybe CDA 230 gives us this right to create tools to improve your experience on Facebook or other social networks and give you more control over them,” said Zuckerman, who teaches public policy, communication and information at Amherst. “And you know what? If we’re able to establish that, it could really open up a new sphere of research and a new sphere of development. We might see people starting to create tools to make social media work better for us.”
While Facebook allows users to unfollow everything manually, the process can be cumbersome with hundreds or even thousands of friends, groups, and companies that people typically follow.
Zuckerman also wants to study how turning off the news feed affects people’s experience on Facebook. Users would have to agree to participate in the study; Use of the browser tool does not automatically enroll participants.
“Social media companies can design their products however they want, but users have the right to control their experience on social media platforms, including by blocking content they consider harmful,” said Ramya Krishnan, senior attorney at the Knight Institute. “Users do not have to accept Facebook as it is offered to them. “The same statute that exempts Meta from liability for its users’ speech gives users the right to decide what they see on the platform.”