Meta’s decision to shut down CrowdTangle, a tool used by journalists, researchers, and politicians to track disinformation on Facebook and Instagram, has sparked outrage and concern. In its place, Meta has introduced the Content Library, but access is limited to qualified academic and nonprofit institutions, leaving many researchers and journalists unable to use the tool. Critics argue that the Content Library is less transparent, accessible, and user-friendly compared to CrowdTangle.
Many in the community have penned open letters to Meta, questioning why they would eliminate a valuable tool just months before a contentious U.S. election. They argue that the proliferation of AI deepfakes and chatbot misinformation poses a significant threat, and replacing CrowdTangle with a less effective tool is a step in the wrong direction.
Meta’s president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, has criticized CrowdTangle, calling it a “degrading tool” that only provides a narrow view of engagement on Facebook. However, this contradicts Meta’s promotion of the platform in 2020 as a source for identifying misinformation and voter interference during elections.
According to Meta, the Content Library offers more detailed insights into what users see and experience on Facebook and Instagram. The new tools include multimedia from Reels, page view counts, and will soon include Threads content. Meta claims that CrowdTangle’s data was skewed towards accounts with large followings and engagement.
However, researchers who were familiar with CrowdTangle argue that the Content Library lacks many of the features and usability of its predecessor. Cameron Hickey, CEO of the National Conference on Citizenship, states that the Content Library has only 10% of the usability of CrowdTangle. He highlights that certain features, such as tracking the number of followers a page has over time, are not available in the Content Library. Hickey believes these indicators are crucial for understanding an actor’s prominence on social media and how it changes over time.
Furthermore, the Content Library restricts users from building interactive charts, public dashboards, and downloading all posts. Researchers are left with limited options, including scraping data directly, which can be complicated. Watchdog organizations, like Media Matters, no longer have access to the Content Library, making it difficult to track the spread of misinformation.
The removal of CrowdTangle and limitations of the Content Library have raised concerns about transparency and accountability on social media platforms during the election year. Researchers and civil society groups rely on tools like CrowdTangle to monitor and track what happens on Facebook and Instagram. Without access to these tools, there is a fear that vital information will go unnoticed, potentially undermining the integrity of the election.
Critics compare Meta’s approach to Elon Musk’s actions at Twitter, where he limited access to the platform’s API. This move made it more challenging for developers, journalists, and researchers to access and analyze data from Twitter. The comparison highlights the potential consequences of limiting access to critical information and the impact on transparency and accountability.
In conclusion, Meta’s decision to shut down CrowdTangle and replace it with the Content Library has sparked controversy and concern among journalists, researchers, and politicians. Critics argue that the Content Library is less effective, less transparent, and less user-friendly. The removal of CrowdTangle limits the ability to track misinformation and monitor social media platforms during a crucial election year. The move raises questions about transparency, accountability, and the potential implications for the integrity of the election process.
