Meta has pulled the plug on CrowdTangle. Here’s what it means for users – and for everyone else

Meta gets a lot of flack for the damage done by content on Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, and rightly so.

As we’ve covered extensively, disinformation and hate speech spread on the company’s social platforms have caused huge real-world harm.

But one thing Meta can and should be praised for is its support for one of the best transparency tools for investigating social media, CrowdTangle, a service it acquired in 2016.

CrowdTangle allows researchers and investigators like us to see into Instagram and Facebook in a way that is far harder to do on other platforms. The monitoring tool allows us to search through public Facebook and Instagram content or see how particular pages and groups have grown over time. It has been integral to some of our investigations, including the series exposing misinformation during the pandemic.

CrowdTangle is incredibly useful. In supporting it, Meta showed that it wasn’t completely opposed to attempts to make its platforms less damaging for users and wider society. It was doing a much better job in this area than competitors such as TikTok and (since Elon Musk took over) X.

Unfortunately, Meta is now pulling the plug on CrowdTangle. The company insists everything is fine because it’s providing a new and improved replacement, the Meta Content Library. But the rules around how this new service can be used make it virtually useless to journalists.

For a start, access is open only to those affiliated with academic institutions or other non-university, not-for-profit organisations that “hold scientific or public interest research as a primary purpose or core activity”. That basically rules out commercial news organisations, and we’re currently not sure whether nonprofit newsrooms like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism will qualify. Even those organisations that are likely to qualify have faced major delays in getting approval to use the service. All the while, Meta has reduced support for CrowdTangle, making it regularly unusable.

But the problems don’t stop there. Those using the Meta Content Library aren’t allowed to publish any personal data, only “research outputs” such as graphs and tables. That means any attempt to publish, for instance, the name of someone found through the library to have incited violence or spread dangerous misinformation is forbidden.

Holding people to account for wrongdoing must be at the core of what journalists do. But if that wrongdoing is taking place on Facebook, Instagram, Threads or WhatsApp, Meta is now helping perpetrators remain protected and hidden. It is difficult to see the rules as anything other than an attempt to conceal harmful behaviour on its platforms – and to hamstring the journalists looking into it.

This won’t stop us. It will make our job harder, and undoubtedly more expensive. But we will still ensure those using Meta’s platforms to cause harm are exposed while uncovering the company’s role in enabling them.

After today, no one will be giving Meta credit for offering more transparency than its peers. And no one will believe that Meta wants its platforms to work for their users and for wider society. It will be just another social media company concerned only about its bottom line.