Ethan Zuckerman, an associate professor at the University of Massachusetts—Amherst, has filed a lawsuit against Meta, arguing that U.S. law should allow people to use unofficial add-ons to gain more control over their social feeds. This legal action, undertaken by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on Zuckerman’s behalf, leverages Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is traditionally known for shielding social platforms from liability for user-posted content.
Zuckerman’s argument hinges on a subsection of Section 230, which he interprets as granting users the right to control how they access the internet, including the use of tools to manage their interactions with social networks like Facebook.
The lawsuit centers around an upcoming browser extension called Unfollow Everything 2.0, which Zuckerman is developing. This tool would allow users to mass-unfollow friends, groups, and pages on Facebook, thus significantly altering their news feed experience.
The extension aims to give users the ability to disengage from the algorithmically driven content delivery that dominates their Facebook experience, potentially leading to reduced platform engagement.
Zuckerman plans to incorporate a feature in Unfollow Everything 2.0 that would enable users to contribute data from their usage of the tool to his research. This research intends to explore whether such modifications to one’s social feed could decrease overall time spent on the platform, echoing findings from previous instances where similar tools were used.
Meta has previously taken action against tools that modify user experiences on its platforms, citing security and privacy concerns. The company successfully argued that a similar tool developed by British developer Louis Barclay, also named Unfollow Everything, violated its terms of service and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Zuckerman seeks a preemptive judgment to safeguard his tool from similar legal challenges.
This lawsuit could set a significant precedent regarding user control over social media interfaces and the extent to which individuals can customize their digital environments against platform policies. It also raises broader questions about the balance between platform governance and user autonomy in the era of algorithmically curated content.
Legal and internet governance experts are closely watching the case, noting its potential to clarify lesser-known aspects of Section 230. The outcome could influence future interactions between platform operators and the developers of third-party tools designed to alter or enhance user experience.
