Introduction to the Case
On Thursday, Bits of Freedom—a Netherlands-based advocacy group specially focused on privacy and freedom of communication—announced that a judge ruled Meta must respect users’ choice to avoid invasive personalized feeds. Within two weeks, Meta must update its apps to allow EU users the choice of sticking with a chronological feed that is not based on profiling.
Background of the Lawsuit
Bits of Freedom sued Meta under the DSA, reminding the court that "one of the core elements of the DSA is that users must have greater influence over the information they see." The judge agreed, ruling that Meta—which Bits of Freedom said used "subtle design tricks" to steer users to feeds "where it can show as many interest and behavior based ads as possible"—must promptly make changes to comply with the DSA.
Implications of the Ruling
Meta declined to comment on the ruling, while Bits of Freedom warned that areas with weak privacy laws could be facing threats to democracy as tech companies strive for greater control over what content shows up in social media feeds. "For many people, and especially for young people, social media platforms are a major source of news and information," Bits of Freedom said. "Therefore, it is crucial that users themselves can decide which content appears on their feed. Without that freedom of choice, participation in the public debate is seriously hampered."
Concerns About Democracy
Maartje Knaap, a spokesperson for Bits of Freedom, said it’s "regrettable that we need to go to court to ensure Meta complies with the law," noting that users especially need to control their feeds ahead of elections. "It is absolutely unacceptable that a handful of American tech billionaires determine how we see the world," Knaap said. "That concentration of power poses a risk to our democracy."
Global Concerns
In the US, where data privacy laws are less strict, advocates are similarly concerned about social media feeds coming under the control of a handful of billionaires—particularly after Donald Trump said he wants TikTok to be tweaked to be "100 percent MAGA" under US ownership. Last year, Meta came under fire for boosting AI posts that researchers linked to misinformation, NPR reported. And a future where AI distorts feeds and helps misinformation spread faster remains a concern, especially after Trump used his own social media platform, Truth Social, to post "a 35-second AI-generated video filled with crude insults, racial overtones, and bizarre conspiracy theories,"
Conclusion
The ruling is a significant step towards protecting users’ rights and promoting transparency in social media platforms. It highlights the importance of regulating tech companies and ensuring that they comply with laws that protect users’ privacy and freedom of communication. As social media continues to play a major role in shaping public discourse, it is crucial that users have control over the content they see and that tech companies are held accountable for their actions.
FAQs
- What is the DSA and how does it relate to the case?
The DSA (Digital Services Act) is a law that aims to regulate digital services, including social media platforms, and ensure that they protect users’ rights and promote transparency. In this case, Bits of Freedom sued Meta under the DSA, arguing that the company’s personalized feeds violated users’ rights to control the information they see. - What does the ruling mean for EU users?
The ruling means that Meta must update its apps to allow EU users to choose a chronological feed that is not based on profiling. This gives users more control over the content they see and reduces the influence of personalized ads. - What are! the implications of the ruling for democracy?
The ruling has significant implications for democracy, as it highlights the importance of regulating tech companies and ensuring that they do not have too much control over the information that users see. This is particularly important in the context of elections, where the spread of misinformation can have serious consequences.
