Native Land Pod is a production of iHeartRadio and partnership with Reason Choice Media. Welcome home, everybody. This is the Tiffany Crass, the Angela Ray, and I'm Andrew Gillum. You're tuned into this week's minipod. Instagram has quietly limited political content. And I asked you know some of my co hosts, actually all of them, are we able to be seen on Instagram if they're limiting political content because we talk a lot of politics.
Yeah.
In fact, we're curious to know how you have been experiencing this because there is a new default setting, whether you know it or not, on Instagram that limits the amount of political content shown in your feed. Now. Instagram promises that if you decide to follow accounts that post political content, we don't want to get between you and their post, But we also don't want to be proactively
recommending political content from accounts that you don't follow. Could you also please not randomly allow ads to follow me all the way through my experience on Instagram too? That's an aside. A separate new default setting now limits content in your feed that has been reviewed by independent fact checkers in found to contain false or partially false information.
What say, okay, can I this phrase this? So the parent company Meta introduced a policy in early February. Is just hitting the news now, but the situation is in early February, this was a policy that was introduced that would apply.
Obviously.
Meta is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, and their policy is to tamp down on the amount of political content that will show up in your feeds from accounts that users do not typically follow. So I know there's a lot of outrage about the but I think it's important to put this in context and why. So this is not necessarily a bad policy from Meta,
but it does come around eight years too late. So if we can remember what happened in twenty sixteen, this is how foreign governments were able to infiltrate our election process. They did it by influencing opinions. So in twenty sixteen, the IRA this is the Internet Russia agency, purchased a lot of ads on Facebook. I think thirty five hundred ads to be exact. And this was not a time that Instagram was as popular, but they purchased Facebook and
Instagram ads to influence the presidential election. So you remember at that time there are a lot of people posting about Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, and people were following these accounts and engaging with them. What we later found out is that a lot of those were Russian bots because they spent maybe two were three months here and to figure out how do we infiltrate this. Oh, I got it. They treat black people really shitty there, so let's make
that our thing. It took them that long to do that. It wasn't the first time they did it, and so as a result, a lot of people real quick, I don't want you to I don't want to go, don't want you to get too far from this point.
The IRA is Internet Research Agency. It was a troll farm. So I just wanted to correct one thing because you just said Internet Russian. I was like, that's not familiar Internet read We're just probably just moving fast.
But I thought it was Internet Russia. But I think that makes more research research agency.
It is a Russian entity.
Yes, so it's an IRA, which is a Russian entity Internet research agency.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure.
I wrote in my book that came out four years ago, Internet Russian Agency.
So now that.
Different Internet research She was making a point, which is it's the point is, but thank you for correcting me, because that's an important point, and this is an arm of the Kremlin. And so at that time, a lot of black folks felt, well, if the only time I'm seeing outrage is from one of these Russian bots, well then I'm going to follow and engage because the mainstream media has summarily dismissed our experience here and our pain.
So by as a result of purchasing these ads, the IRA was able to reach over one hundred and forty six million people.
Most of those people were black people.
So I just want to put that in context as we talk about why this happened and why this is happening now.
Yeah, except that we didn't get to opt out before, right, So in this case, the company has opted us out and we have to go back and opt in to receiving ads that would have normally showed up in our algorithm.
Well, because they're saying you accounts that you don't.
Already follow, I right, But there are a lot of accounts I don't follow. There are a lot of counts that I don't follow that populate right inside my feed. All I'm saying is why not give the viewer the choice to opt out rather than us having to opt in. Almost every other default setting opts us into something. They opt me into location, they opt me into tracking, they opt me into this, they op me into that. But then I've got to then opt out when it comes to political content.
I am concerned about this for a number of reasons.
Andrew ld with this.
Our podcast is political, and I will tell you that it's been interesting to see there's been a tremendous shift in our likes and our engagement over the course of the last month. So when I saw this, I was like, oh my god, no wonder. So for people who don't know, when you go into Instagram and you click on your settings, this is my tutorial day, click on those little three lines and you click on those three lines and you
scroll down to content preferences. There are several videos on this, but I just want to walk through this preferences and there's literally an item here now that says political content. It doesn't say ads is political content. When you click on that, you get two options. Limit political content from people you don't follow. You might see less political or social topics in your suggested content. That's that search bar when you click on search, Mine is all babies, Tips
is all dogs. I don't know Andrew wist in your search, then it probably all books. Then it says or don't limit political content from people you don't follow. You might see more political or social topics in your suggested content.
So I clicked on.
Don't limit political, and that's the second option. It says this affects suggestions and explore reels, feed recommendations, and suggested users. Allegedly, it says it does not affect the content from accounts you follow. This setting also applies to threads. I think that my issue here is and again I was raised by an activist.
I am very.
Concerned and I am skeptical that they have some independent fact checkers on.
Things that I should and should not be receiving.
I get why it's important to like, I love now that Twitter will formally the artist formally known as Twitter has the thing that'll say like, this content is false because of x y Z. I think that's great, and to Tip's point, it is several years too late. But also like, I want to be able to make my own decision about whether or not I want to engage in something and as you all both know, during the unrest around George Floyd's murder, they were limiting contents. They
were black bawling BLM pieces and the BLM hashtag. I don't want them to do that for me, especially in a year like now. We know this is not just a typical election year. We're in a political war. I don't want them that content for me. I want to decide for myself. And it's just interesting that we are now. It feels like talking about social media platforms every week. Last week it was the TikTok ban and what that
could mean. It sounds more like a forced sale to a rich billionaire in America, maybe even the Department of Treasury secretary, former Department Treasury Secretary Manuchin, a Trump guy. But the thing is, we have to be very cognizant of these things. For some of the young people in our community, even some of the older folks, the primary source of news where they read a headline is on social media. We're starting to put headlines on our page because we know I know, Tip, but it's true.
We're starting to put.
Headlines on our page because people aren't hearing about these things. And Tip, as you say, often before you do this all the way. Sometimes we're talking about things that you're not able to see on mainstream media outlets. So for example, sessiona's office being shut down, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion in the House. We put that up pretty early. We got a lot of engagement around that because people didn't know that that was happening.
We have to figure out a way to reach people.
But if we can't because they're limiting the content because they decided that it wasn't factually accurate. What if they decided that our post wasn't accurate because the Republicans eventually are first talked about it in the rules package instead of when they defunded it, when the money was actually stripped from that office last week, or because it was a rebrand, it's not really the elimination of it. Like,
I don't want them subjectively choosing that for us. So I got some serious feelings about this, and I'm worried about it because I've been thinking and been concerned that they've been black boweling activists and silencing people with voices that matter around issues that could you know, really gen people up on issues that we care about, getting folks
mobilized I don't want them deciding that for us. If they're like, well, this isn't really a voter suppression bill, it's a voter id buill, don't decide that for me.
Let me decide that.
They need to be regulated more intensely. I'm saying that we were out here spewing that which I am. I mean, I think that they have run away with the whole barn. Is that too political? And do I get devalued? And again, when you're talking abou platforms like Hours that are attempting to grow an audience, to introduce ourselves, we're only twelve episodes old, right, and the pantheon of of lifespans and
now we can't enter. We can't pierce anybody's curiosity with what it is that we have to say that likely happens to be showing up in their feed because they said a word, or engage in an action or like another thing that might be similar to what we're talking about. So even though I don't know follow us, the reason why it's popping up for me is because based off the other things that I follow, the types of people that I follow, and the types of sources that I consult,
this might be a good option for me. So that goes away when somebody in some box somewhere who I don't know, can't call name of it, and certainly can't reach on the phone or in an email, decides that what I have to say is too political, discomforting, disquieting, that's not right. And we were talking about China running away with a misinformation war. What about the misinformation that's
been perpetrated right here at home. We have got to take a quick break, pay some bills, and we'll be right back.
I hear both your points, and I think those are legitimate points, because I've certainly seen a decrease in our engagement too. I don't know the solution here, but in twenty sixteen, if Russia were trying to or we know that Russia was trying to infiltrate our election process, for sure they have company. In twenty twenty four, I'd imagine Iran has a vested interest in how this election turns out. I'd imagine China most certainly has a vested interest in
how this election turns out. Well, I think yeah, I think China and Iran. I don't think there's been any US intel evidence that Israel has has ever tried to, so I don't actually.
Said vested interest in sorry how it turns out.
I mean, though, people who would join Russia and trying to influence the outcome of the election. So I would say China, Iran, and who knows what other hostile governments in the United States. So I do think this does require some attention. I think social media can certainly not exacerbate, but put on a under a microscope the political polarization that happens in the country. I don't think it introduces it, and I don't think it influences somebody to.
Feel the way they don't already feel.
So I don't know the solution, but I can't say that, you know, they should just let it be a free for all. I think it might be a regulatory issue. It is a huge regulatory issue.
The success of foreign actors playing in our election actions happened to be then playing on the sympathies, real life sympathies of people who were expressing what they legit felt, except it was being multiplied, right, so you saw it more often, more fiercely. If you were into it before, then you're going to hear those voices. You know that many more times. But they were using grievances and contents generated by us and selling it back to us, just
as political parties do and just as others do. But I mean, I think the point I would rest on is one get information from a whole variety of different sources, right.
And reading.
Secondly, we all ought to be fighting fiercely for liberties that we once held sacri saying, which now we're just willing to flip over and turn over in the name of national security. Anytime I hear the national security state warning me off of something, I'm going the opposite direction because I'm not sure what they're motivated by. I know a defense budget exists that I don't get to see.
I know that there are other clandestine operations that occurred not just here, but abroad and within our hemisphere and outside of it. And I don't want anybody censoring.
Me, And I don't want anybody like censoring for me either, you know what I mean.
Like I'm not a child, I don't want.
I want to be able to have some independence in what I consume. I also think that what is scary to me is the number of folks I'm about to I'm just warning, I'm about to completely contradict myself. But there are also some instances where people rely on some accounts that they really shouldn't. It really is not good information. It's not just political. It's information that's bad and not
true about your health. It's information that's bad and not true about different herbs that you should consume or different foods that you can eat. And they turn into this or they do that. There was a whole piece the other day that I saw where this guy was trying to argue that you should not drink water as a human. You should get your water from other places because you don't stand on all.
Fours drink the water.
That is not a limitation of political content, but it is limitation of bullshit.
Can you please not on? It's outrageous.
And the thing that I worry about now is young folks were kind of raised in this era where they weren't necessarily told that Wikipedia, for example, is not a primary source you know.
To it's not a research tool.
Right right, You have to still cite yours. That's why I love that tip. Will hate somebody up about it, like what was your source? Though, I'm glad that you looked it up. What was the source, because it could have got that from booboo tofood dot com. We're not here for booboodofood dot com. Like, were not trying to amplify booboo food dot com. We don't want to cite statistics from boobootofood dot com. And we're definitely not trying to see that in our Instagram search. So Instagram, you
want to do me a favorite, limit some stuff. Look at the people that's touting this other stuff, Like I can figure out the politics.
Maybe everybody can't believe me alone. Give me an exemption.
The reporting on this. This is according to the AP that ninety seven percent of the misinformation that they fact checked was targeted towards conservatives, which makes a lot of sense, makes so much.
Sense innative reality.
Sure, when you think about some of the nonsense that they say.
Wait TIF, wait TIF, what is it?
Tiff?
What is it? The nonsense?
Nonsense spouts I don't understand how I'm saying it wrong nonsense nonsense?
Yeah, I mean it's just it's nonsense. Give me a different affect.
What's you? What's the non pieces do they wear? What's the head piece they wear?
Hobbit? Is it a hobbit.
Yeah, give me one of those. I want one of those.
For this part of the nonsense, Albert says, I say everybody, we.
Should say we should use nonsense instead of nonsense, because if we use nonsense, maybe become smarter.
Anyway, Yeah, it's.
Nonsense and nonsense.
Start checking anyway, Start filtering those horrible commercials and ads and shoes and all that stuff.
And just read. Young people read, but don't read everything.
Can we give them some sources we need to give credible book Let's start with some books because those are typically vetted well, those are even if you're reading something that you disagree with, those are typically fact checked and vetted through publishing houses.
So I always recommending even Bill O'Reilly's book, I believe. I don't know because I don't know who his publisher is. But I think the point I'm making about reading books is you can question it, question everything, question what you read in the times. But getting something on social media is not engaging in any kind of reputable political discourse. And I can't tell you how many young people will come to me and say they want to do what I do or what what all of us do? And
I always ask them. You want to be a journalist, tell me about the papers you read every morning, and you can't tell you can't cite me a single paper you read. You don't want to be a journalist. You want to be on TV, and that's something different. If you want to work on Capitol Hill, but you can't tell me who your member of Congress is, then you
it's hard to take you seriously. So I just would encourage young people to have some intellectual curiosity that extends beyond hashtag activism and Instagram and read something, read something and question everything.
Is even with the legitimate primary sources you read, there are writers who show up with various perspectives, just.
My textbooks. That's why I was like, they didn't fact check some.
Of the text to the ether on this whole fact check thing, because people are going to pursue the sources that re emphasize and legitimize what they already think facts be damned, how.
Do we get out of that? Like, I don't even want to do that. I don't even want to do that. I don't want to be the type of person that will only read something that will support my point. I want to read something from the other side. I want to know that what I'm saying is accurate. I don't want to just come in and convince people. I want to be able to rely on a fact based argument.
I used to say that I'm seeing it all the time, like I don't want to be engaged in a fact free debate, Like that's a waste of time.
But that's what we are, that's what we are as a society.
Well, I don't want to stay there, no, but you can, and I think that you do. I think you do a good job of engaging opposition. But there are are outlets.
You know.
There is the Washington Post, and there's the Washington Times. I'm not saying the Washington Post is liberal. Some people may argue that, but we know the Washington Times is a conservative paper. There is the Wall Street Journal. They skew conservative. I read the op ed pages of a journal almost every day.
There.
I won't do Fox News because there I don't consider them a news outlet. But there are conservative papers all across the country that lay out their arguments with at least some intellect. I mean the Walstaed pages. They're conservative, but it's at least an intellectual argument in exchange of ideas well, at least.
They tell you up front that it's an opinion, and it's.
An opinion, but what about like like, so I know this is probably a whole other podcast, and we would tippy this one. You should lead on news sources because you really do read a ton every single day, Like I admire it. The thing that's been driving me nuts again, you guys know, I'm in like this loop around Maryland, Like that's all I read all weekend is like thousands of court transcript pages. Looking at I had by our
professional development program do a deep dive on articles. Baltimore's Baltimore Sun was engaged in a strategic hit job, like article after article after article, and I think some folks would think that Baltimore Sun, the Baltimore Sun would be a neutral piece. Andrew, you experienced this as well in your trial with the Tallahassee Democrat. Like, there are some papers that don't just skew conservative, they also skew very racist.
My dad was attacked in our hometown paper to hometown papers for years.
So it's like you you were trying to get.
Trying to be conservative, to be racist, but I'm saying you also could be you could be both, and like, what do we how do we teach or train not even young people, but the older folks who relied on them to read with that type of strategic eye as well.
I think I think that.
Shapes their their worldview.
But there are liberal or I would say, to the left of center outlets that I read, and I'm very offended by.
Yeah, we know there are you know, white liberal people.
That's true, who say racist things all the time. Right, So some of these newspapers fall in that category. But we're getting to a whole other.
Pologist all the more reason why we've got to be diligent and continuing to expand our listenership so that you can hear these wild, sometimes wacky, sometimes extremely relevant off the times topics that we get to dive into and discuss most of them at your request, So be sure to download, subscribe, please please please review. That's how we get to be put higher in the algorithm and be exposed to more people, so that more people can be exposed to our truth, our reality, what we consider to
be news. Thanks again for listening to us. This has been another mini pod that wasn't so many, but we thank you for joining us.
Anyway, Welcome y'all.
Native Land Pod is a production of iHeartRadio and partnership with Resent Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.