Lawsuit against Meta asks if Facebook users have right to control their feeds using external tools

Lawsuit against Meta asks if Facebook users have right to control their feeds using external tools
The lawsuit, in other words, asks the court to determine whether Facebook users’ news feed falls into the category of objectionable material that they should be able to filter out in order to enjoy the platform. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 06 May 2024
Follow

Lawsuit against Meta asks if Facebook users have right to control their feeds using external tools

Lawsuit against Meta asks if Facebook users have right to control their feeds using external tools
  • The tool, called Unfollow Everything 2.0, is a browser extension that would let Facebook users unfollow friends, groups and pages and empty their newsfeed — the stream of posts, photos and videos that can keep them scrolling endlessly

Do social media users have the right to control what they see — or don’t see — on their feeds?
A lawsuit filed against Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. is arguing that a federal law often used to shield Internet companies from liability also allows people to use external tools to take control of their feed — even if that means shutting it off entirely.
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Meta Platforms on behalf of an Amherst professor who wants to release a tool that enables users to unfollow all the content fed to them by Facebook’s algorithm.
The tool, called Unfollow Everything 2.0, is a browser extension that would let Facebook users 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, addicting stream of content, people might use it less. If the past is any indication, Meta will not be keen on the idea.
A UK developer, Louis Barclay, released a similar tool, called Unfollow Everything, but he took it down in 2021, fearing a lawsuit after receiving a cease-and-desist letter and a lifetime Facebook ban from 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 to the legal punch to avoid getting 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. “We basically get whatever controls Facebook wants. And that’s actually pretty different from how the Internet has worked historically.” Just think of email, which lets people use different email clients, or 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 centers on a provision of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which is often used to protect Internet companies from liability for things posted on their sites. A separate clause, though, provides immunity to software developers who create tools that “filter, screen, allow, or disallow content that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
The lawsuit, in other words, asks the court to determine whether Facebook users’ news feed falls into the category of objectionable material that they should be able to filter out in order to enjoy the platform.
“Maybe CDA 230 provides us with this right to build tools to make your experience of Facebook or other social networks better and to 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, that could really open up a new sphere of research and a new sphere of development. You might see people starting to build tools to make social networks work better for us.”
While Facebook does allow users to manually unfollow everything, the process can be cumbersome with hundreds or even thousands of friends, groups and businesses that people often follow.
Zuckerman also wants to study how turning off the news feed affects people’s experience on Facebook. Users would have to agree to take part in the study — using the browser tool does not automatically enroll participants.
“Social media companies can design their products as they want to, but users have the right to control their experience on social media platforms, including by blocking content they consider to be harmful,” said Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute. “Users don’t have to accept Facebook as it’s given to them. The same statute that immunizes Meta from liability for the speech of its users gives users the right to decide what they see on the platform.”


Police ban pro-Palestine march near BBC headquarters over ‘disruption’ concerns

Police ban pro-Palestine march near BBC headquarters over ‘disruption’ concerns
Updated 10 January 2025
Follow

Police ban pro-Palestine march near BBC headquarters over ‘disruption’ concerns

Police ban pro-Palestine march near BBC headquarters over ‘disruption’ concerns
  • Planned Jan. 18 march was set to pass near a synagogue
  • Organizers criticized decision, saying it ‘rejects the implication that our marches are somehow hostile to or a threat to Jewish people’

LONDON: UK police have banned a planned pro-Palestine march from taking place outside the BBC headquarters in London, citing concerns over potential “serious disruption” to a nearby synagogue.

The decision, announced on Friday, prevents the rally — originally scheduled for Saturday, Jan. 18 — from gathering in the area under the Public Order Act.

The Metropolitan Police said that it consulted with local community and business representatives, including members of the synagogue’s congregation located “very close” to the proposed starting point of the march, before making the decision.

The ban follows an earlier request by authorities for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, or PSC, the march’s organizers, to amend their planned route to avoid disrupting worshippers at the synagogue on Shabbat, the Jewish holy day.

The PSC strongly criticized the move, stating: “The Palestine coalition rejects the implication that our marches are somehow hostile to or a threat to Jewish people.

“The Met police have acknowledged there has not been a single incident of any threat to a synagogue attached to any of the marches.”

In an open letter issued on Friday, more than 150 cross-party MPs, trade union leaders, writers, cultural figures and civil society organizations condemned the police’s actions, accusing them of “misusing public order powers to shield the BBC from democratic scrutiny.”

“The route for the march was confirmed with the Police nearly two months ago and, as agreed with them, was publicly announced on 30 November. This route, beginning at the BBC, has only been used twice in the last 15 months of demonstrations and not since February 2024,” the PSC said in its statement.

“With just over a week to go, the Metropolitan Police is reneging on the agreement and has stated its intention to prevent the protest from going ahead as planned.”

The rally was expected to begin outside the BBC’s headquarters before marching to Whitehall.

Organizers said that the demonstration was intended to protest about the “pro-Israel bias” that they claim dominates the broadcaster’s coverage.


’Real-world harm’ if Meta ends fact-checks, global network warns

’Real-world harm’ if Meta ends fact-checks, global network warns
Updated 10 January 2025
Follow

’Real-world harm’ if Meta ends fact-checks, global network warns

’Real-world harm’ if Meta ends fact-checks, global network warns
  • Mark Zuckerberg said earlier this week Meta will loosen content moderation policies in the US, citing bias and excessive censorship
  • Announcement sparked international outcry, alarm amid fears of serious consequences

WASHINGTON: There will be “real-world harm” if Meta expands its decision to scrap fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram, a global network warned Thursday while disputing Mark Zuckerberg’s claim such moderation amounts to censorship.
Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s surprise announcement this week to slash content moderation policies in the United States has sparked alarm in countries such as Australia and Brazil.
The tech tycoon said fact-checkers were “too politically biased” and the program had led to “too much censorship.”
But the International Fact-Checking Network, which includes AFP among its dozens of member organizations globally, said the censorship claim was “false.”
“We want to set the record straight, both for today’s context and for the historical record,” said the network.
Facebook pays to use fact checks from around 80 organizations globally on the platform, as well as on WhatsApp and Instagram.
There could be devastating consequences if Meta broadens its policy shift beyond US borders, to programs covering more than 100 countries, the International Fact-Checking Network warned.
“Some of these countries are highly vulnerable to misinformation that spurs political instability, election interference, mob violence and even genocide,” the network said.
“If Meta decides to stop the program worldwide, it is almost certain to result in real-world harm in many places,” it added.

In Geneva Friday, the United Nations rights chief also insisted that regulating harmful content online “is not censorship.”
“Allowing hate speech and harmful content online has real world consequences. Regulating such content is not censorship,” Volker Turk said on X.
AFP currently works in 26 languages with Facebook’s fact-checking scheme.
In that program, content rated “false” is downgraded in news feeds so fewer people will see it and if someone tries to share that post, they are presented with an article explaining why it is misleading.
Supinya Klangnarong, co-founder of Thai fact-checking platform Cofact, said Meta’s decision could have concrete effects offline.
“Understandably this policy from Meta is aimed at US users, but we cannot be certain how it will affect other countries,” she told AFP.
“By allowing the proliferation of hate speech and racist dialogue could be a trigger toward violence.”
Cofact is not an accredited member of the International Fact-Checking Network or of Facebook’s fact-checking scheme.


Meta’s policy overhaul came less than two weeks before US President-elect Donald Trump takes office and it aligns with the Republican Party’s stance.
Trump has been a harsh critic of Meta and Zuckerberg for years, accusing the company of bias against him and threatening to retaliate against the tech billionaire once back in office.
Zuckerberg has been making efforts to reconcile with Trump since his election in November, meeting at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and donating one million dollars to his inauguration fund.
The Meta chief also named Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) head Dana White, a close ally of Trump, to the company board.
Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, said Tuesday the decision came after “extreme political pressure.”
The move “will hurt social media users who are looking for accurate, reliable information to make decisions about their everyday lives and interactions with friends and family.”
Australia said Meta’s decision was “a very damaging development,” while Brazil warned it was “bad for democracy.”
Meta’s move into fact-checking came in the wake of Trump’s shock election in 2016, which critics said was enabled by rampant disinformation on Facebook and interference by foreign actors, including Russia, on the platform.


Quaker group halts New York Times ads over ‘Gaza genocide’ language dispute

Quaker group halts New York Times ads over ‘Gaza genocide’ language dispute
Updated 09 January 2025
Follow

Quaker group halts New York Times ads over ‘Gaza genocide’ language dispute

Quaker group halts New York Times ads over ‘Gaza genocide’ language dispute
  • American Friends Service Committee claims newspaper asked it to replace word ‘genocide’ with ‘war’
  • Proposed ad urged US Congress to ‘stop arming Israel’s genocide in Gaza’

LONDON: An American Quaker group has paused its advertisements with the New York Times after the newspaper refused to allow the use of the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza.

“The refusal of the New York Times to run paid digital ads that call for an end to Israel’s genocide in Gaza is an outrageous attempt to sidestep the truth,” said Joyce Ajlouny, general secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization that advocates for peace.

“Palestinians and allies have been silenced and marginalized in the media for decades as these institutions choose silence over accountability. It is only by challenging this reality that we can hope to forge a path toward a more just and equitable world.”

The controversy arose after the AFSC submitted an ad with the text: “Tell Congress to stop arming Israel’s genocide in Gaza now! As a Quaker organization, we work for peace. Join us. Tell the president and Congress to stop the killing and starvation in Gaza.”

The New York Times’ advertising team reportedly requested that the AFSC replace the word “genocide” with “war.” When the AFSC refused, the newspaper’s ad acceptability team said that “differing views on the situation” required adherence to “factual accuracy and legal standards” to ensure compliance with its guidelines.

A spokesperson for the New York Times said in response to questions from The Guardian in the UK: “New York Times advertising works with parties submitting proposed ads to ensure they are in compliance with our acceptability guidelines.

“This instance was no different, and is entirely in line with the standards we apply to all ad submissions.”

However, the AFSC strongly criticized the decision, pointing out that many human rights organizations, legal scholars, and even the UN have described Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide or genocidal acts.

“The suggestion that the New York Times couldn’t run an ad against Israel’s genocide in Gaza because there are ‘differing views’ is absurd,” said Layne Mullett, director of media relations for the AFSC.

“The New York Times advertises a wide variety of products and advocacy messages on which there are differing views. Why is it not acceptable to publicize the meticulously documented atrocities committed by Israel and paid for by the United States?”

The AFSC also pointed to The Washington Post’s recent decision to run an Amnesty International ad that also used the term genocide, questioning why the New York Times applied different standards.

The Quaker group has been involved in humanitarian work in Gaza since 1948 and currently operates in Gaza, Ramallah, and Jerusalem. Since October 2023, the AFSC’s staff in Gaza have provided 1.5 million meals, hygiene kits, and other essential aid to displaced individuals. The organization is also lobbying for a permanent ceasefire, full humanitarian access, the release of captives, and an end to US military funding for Israel.

According to The Guardian, the New York Times has previously run advertisements using the term genocide.

In 2016, it published an ad from the Armenian Educational Foundation thanking Kim Kardashian for opposing denial of the Armenian genocide. In 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain co-signed a letter advertisement in the New York Times calling out the genocide in Sudan’s Darfur.

It also noted that while the New York Times reserves the right to reject ads it deems inaccurate or deceptive, its advertising guidelines state that “advertising space is open to all points of view” and submissions may be subject to fact-checking.


Conde Nast reshapes Arab fashion media with Vogue Arabia and GQ Middle East takeover

Conde Nast reshapes Arab fashion media with Vogue Arabia and GQ Middle East takeover
Updated 09 January 2025
Follow

Conde Nast reshapes Arab fashion media with Vogue Arabia and GQ Middle East takeover

Conde Nast reshapes Arab fashion media with Vogue Arabia and GQ Middle East takeover
  • Manuel Arnaut and Amine Jreissati will lead Vogue and GQ respectively

LONDON: Vogue Arabia and GQ Middle East have officially joined Conde Nast’s portfolio of owned operations in Dubai, the media conglomerate announced on Thursday.

The move marks a significant reshuffle in the Arab fashion media landscape, as Conde Nast takes over the licenses from previous publishers Nervora, which launched Vogue Arabia in 2016, and ITP Media, which introduced GQ Middle East in 2018.

As part of the transition, Lebanese fashion designer Amine Jreissati has been appointed head of editorial content for GQ Middle East. Portuguese journalist Manuel Arnaut, who faced criticism for his 2017 appointment to Vogue Arabia due to limited regional experience, will continue to lead the title under the new structure.

“We are fortunate that Manuel and Amine, two incredibly gifted and creative editors, will be leading our titles,” said Anna Wintour, Conde Nast’s chief content officer.

“Their taste, judgment and journalistic experience are a huge benefit and the way they have elevated the contributions of artists and designers in the Middle East to the global stage has been tremendous.”

The acquisition brings Vogue Arabia and GQ Middle East into the same portfolio as Architectural Digest Middle East and Conde Nast Traveller Middle East, both of which became fully owned and operated by Conde Nast in 2023.

Thomas Khoury, Conde Nast’s managing director for the Middle East, oversaw the transition of the two titles, further cementing the company’s commitment to the region’s growing influence in global fashion and media.


New Arab Journalism Award board formed

New Arab Journalism Award board formed
Updated 09 January 2025
Follow

New Arab Journalism Award board formed

New Arab Journalism Award board formed
  • Mona Ghanem Al-Marri will lead the board, Dr. Maitha Buhumaid to serve as secretary-general
  • Arab News Editor-in-Chief Faisal J. Abbas selected as member

DUBAI: Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, vice president and prime minister of the UAE and ruler of Dubai, on Thursday approved the newly restructured board of directors for the Arab Journalism Award. The board will be chaired by Mona Ghanem Al-Marri, vice president and managing director of the Dubai Media Council.

The revamped board includes prominent intellectuals, media leaders, and academics from across the Arab world, reflecting a commitment to fostering regional media excellence.

Al-Marri, a key figure in the UAE’s media landscape, is also president of the Dubai Press Club, making her one of the most influential voices in Arab media today.

Dr. Maitha Buhumaid, the Dubai Press Club’s current director, will serve as the award’s governing body’s secretary-general.

Also on the board is Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat; Ahmed Al-Muslimani, chairman of Egypt’s National Media Authority; Sultan Al-Nuaimi, author and director general of the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research; and Arab News Editor-in-Chief Faisal J. Abbas.

The AJA is scheduled to be held in May, coinciding with the Arab Media Summit, the largest media thought leadership event in the Middle East, which will run from May 26-28 in Dubai.