Meta’s Decision to Decommission CrowdTangle
In a move that experts have criticized as “a grave step backwards,” Meta, the owner of Facebook, has announced the decommissioning of CrowdTangle, a vital digital tool used for tracking viral falsehoods. This decision, set to take effect on August 14, is expected to have significant implications for monitoring political misinformation, especially in a major election year.
Understanding CrowdTangle
CrowdTangle has been a game-changing tool that provided researchers and journalists with real-time transparency into the spread of conspiracy theories and hate speech on Meta-owned platforms like Facebook and Instagram. The tool has been instrumental in identifying harmful activities and misinformation online.
Replacement with Content Library
The decommissioning of CrowdTangle will see it being replaced by a new tool called Content Library, which is currently under development. However, concerns have been raised about the functionality of the new tool, with experts, including former CrowdTangle chief executive Brandon Silverman, expressing doubts about its effectiveness, especially in a year marked by global elections.
Concerns and Reactions
Experts and organizations, such as the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and the Mozilla Foundation, have voiced concerns about the impact of this decision. Melanie Smith from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue warned that limiting access to CrowdTangle could hinder independent oversight of harmful activities, particularly during election periods.
The Mozilla Foundation, along with other technology watchdogs, has urged Meta to retain CrowdTangle until at least January 2025, citing worries about the new tool’s limitations and the potential loss of transparency in monitoring online content.
Meta’s Response
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone defended the decision, stating that the Content Library will provide more comprehensive data than CrowdTangle and will be accessible to academics and non-profit election integrity experts. However, concerns persist about the tool’s accessibility to independent researchers and journalists, raising questions about transparency and accountability.
