Centre Asks Meta to Review Instagram, Facebook Algorithms

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has asked Meta to review the recommendation algorithms used by Instagram and Facebook, expressing concern that users could be disproportionately exposed to a single or limited set of narratives about ongoing public events. The advisory also calls for stronger safeguards against misleading content, material that could incite violence and posts that may contribute to public disorder.

The advisory, dated October 10, comes amid the circulation of social media content related to protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and opposition parties in Delhi. The demonstrators have demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Although the ministry’s advisory does not identify a specific protest or incident as the reason for its directions, it raises broader questions about how social media platforms recommend political content, handle material from developing events and respond when posts gain significant reach. The advisory was seen by news agency Press Trust of India (PTI).

Why the Centre wants Meta to review its recommendation algorithms

Social media recommendation systems influence which posts users see in their feeds, which videos appear as suggestions and what content is repeatedly presented to them. These systems can use signals such as user interactions, viewing behaviour and content relevance to determine what is displayed.

In its advisory, MeitY asked Meta to review its content-ranking and recommendation mechanisms to prevent potentially misleading, manipulated or out-of-context material from being amplified disproportionately. It also called on the company to ensure that users are not repeatedly directed towards one narrative or a narrow selection of viewpoints.

The ministry urged Meta to provide an appropriate diversity of relevant and credible information through its recommendation systems. The objective, as stated in the advisory, is to reduce the risk that algorithmic distribution creates an unbalanced picture of events, particularly when public attention is focused on protests or other sensitive developments.

According to PTI, sources said the ministry had received reports from agencies indicating that Meta’s platforms were not promoting all narratives equally. The reports reportedly suggested that the algorithms appeared to favour certain kinds of content over others. These are reported concerns, rather than an independently established finding that Meta’s systems systematically favour a particular political position.

Meta asked to provide context for photographs, videos and graphics

A key part of the advisory concerns photographs, videos, graphics, statements and other material depicting ongoing public events. MeitY said such content was being prominently displayed and recommended to users on Meta’s platforms, including material connected with public-order and law-and-order situations.

The ministry has asked Meta to ensure that users receive adequate context when viewing such material, particularly when they cannot easily establish whether it is authentic or determine when and where it was recorded.

This requirement is significant because visual content can circulate widely without the information needed to interpret it accurately. A video recorded during an earlier protest, for example, may be shared alongside claims that it depicts a current demonstration. Similarly, an image taken at one location could be presented as evidence of an incident elsewhere.

Such material can create confusion when it is shared without its original date, location or circumstances. Edited footage, misleading captions and graphics that omit relevant information can also influence how audiences understand an unfolding event.

By asking Meta to provide appropriate context, the ministry is seeking safeguards that could help users distinguish verified information from material whose authenticity or background remains uncertain. The advisory does not establish that every widely circulated post is misleading; rather, it focuses on the risks associated with content that may be manipulated, misrepresented or taken out of context.

Centre calls for stronger checks on content that could disrupt public order

Alongside its concerns about recommendation algorithms, MeitY has asked Meta to strengthen mechanisms for identifying and reviewing content that could contribute to public disorder, incite violence or promote unlawful activities.

The advisory calls for systems that can rapidly identify, review and escalate content that gains significant reach through recommendation mechanisms. The ministry is particularly concerned about material that could trigger widespread confusion, apprehension, violence or a disturbance of public order.

Social media platforms can distribute content to large audiences in a short period. When a post attracts substantial engagement, recommendation systems may continue suggesting it to additional users. During a rapidly developing public event, this process can increase the visibility of claims before their accuracy has been established.

The ministry’s concern is that potentially misleading material could receive repeated exposure because of the way it is ranked and recommended. Its directions therefore focus not only on whether a post violates platform rules or applicable law, but also on how the recommendation system may contribute to the post’s reach.

MeitY has also called for prompt cooperation with law enforcement agencies and other authorised government bodies. Meta has been asked to furnish information or assistance in accordance with applicable laws and within the timelines prescribed under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.

The advisory places particular emphasis on the need to respond quickly when content attracts significant attention and may have implications for public safety. However, the precise response to individual posts would depend on the circumstances, the applicable legal framework and the nature of the content involved.

Why the advisory comes amid CJP and opposition protests in Delhi

The advisory comes as content related to protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and opposition parties in Delhi has appeared on social media platforms. The protests concern the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and include demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The SIR is an electoral-roll revision exercise that has become a point of political contention. Opposition parties and protesters have raised concerns about the process, while the dispute has drawn public attention to questions surrounding voter registration and the Election Commission’s role.

Social media platforms provide a channel through which political groups, supporters, journalists and members of the public can share information about demonstrations. Photographs, live videos, speeches and statements can help audiences follow events, including developments that may not receive immediate coverage through traditional media.

At the same time, a rapidly changing protest situation can generate conflicting accounts. Different participants may describe the same event from different perspectives, while footage and claims can circulate before independent verification is available. This makes context and accurate labelling particularly important.

MeitY’s advisory does not explicitly identify the CJP demonstrations as the incident that triggered its action. Its directions are framed around broader concerns involving content about ongoing public events and the way Meta’s recommendation systems distribute such material.

The timing nevertheless places the advisory in the context of heightened political activity and debate over the SIR. The distinction matters: the existence of protests and the government’s concerns about online content do not, by themselves, establish that the demonstrations were responsible for the advisory or that the content circulating about them was necessarily unlawful or misleading.

How recommendation algorithms influence what users see

Facebook and Instagram use automated systems to select and rank content for individual users. Rather than presenting every available post in chronological order, recommendation systems determine which material is likely to be relevant or engaging for a particular audience.

These systems can draw on multiple signals, including a user’s previous interactions, the accounts they follow, their viewing activity and the characteristics of the content. The precise combination of signals varies by product and recommendation surface.

Personalised recommendations can help users discover relevant material in large volumes of content. They can also make it easier to find creators, news updates, public-interest discussions and perspectives beyond the accounts a person already follows.

However, personalisation can create concerns when users repeatedly encounter similar claims or viewpoints. If recommendations consistently favour content that resembles what a person has already engaged with, their feed may offer a narrower selection of information than the wider platform contains.

During political disputes, this can affect how people encounter competing claims. A user who repeatedly watches videos about one aspect of a protest may receive further recommendations on the same subject, while other accounts of the event may be less visible in that user’s feed.

This does not necessarily mean an algorithm is deliberately favouring a political party or viewpoint. Engagement patterns, user preferences, content availability and ranking decisions can all influence what appears. Establishing whether a platform systematically favours particular narratives would require evidence about how its systems operate and what users actually receive.

MeitY’s request for greater diversity of relevant and credible information addresses this broader issue. It asks Meta to examine whether the design of its recommendation mechanisms is resulting in disproportionate exposure to a limited set of narratives.

What the IT Rules, 2021 mean for Meta

The advisory also refers to cooperation with authorised government bodies under applicable law and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

The IT Rules establish due-diligence obligations for intermediaries, including social media companies. They cover matters such as publishing platform policies, providing grievance-redressal mechanisms and meeting specified compliance requirements. Significant social media intermediaries are subject to additional obligations under the rules.

The framework is intended to establish responsibilities for online intermediaries and provide mechanisms for addressing complaints and unlawful content. Depending on the circumstances and the applicable legal provisions, platforms may be required to respond to lawful requests or comply with directions issued by authorised bodies.

MeitY’s latest advisory highlights the government’s expectation that Meta should respond promptly when authorised agencies seek assistance in matters covered by law. It also links the issue of public-order risks with the platforms’ responsibilities for reviewing and handling potentially harmful content.

However, an advisory should not automatically be interpreted as proof that a company has violated the law. The legal implications of any alleged non-compliance would depend on the relevant provisions, the facts of the case and the applicable procedures.

For Meta, the practical challenge is to assess the advisory’s requests and determine how its existing content-review, recommendation and escalation systems address the risks identified by the ministry.

Balancing misinformation safeguards with freedom of expression

The advisory raises a broader question about how social media companies should address misleading content without unnecessarily restricting legitimate public discussion.

During protests and other major public events, users may share eyewitness accounts, criticism of public officials, political arguments and footage intended to document what is happening. Such material can contribute to public debate and help people understand developments as they unfold.

Not every disputed claim is misinformation, and not every post critical of the government or another public institution creates a public-order risk. Genuine reporting and political expression may also include competing interpretations of events, especially when information is incomplete.

For this reason, content moderation and recommendation decisions require careful distinctions. Material that directly incites violence or promotes unlawful conduct presents different considerations from a political opinion, an unverified allegation or a video whose background has not yet been confirmed.

Providing context can be one way to address uncertainty without automatically removing a post. Depending on the situation, relevant information might include the original date and location of a recording, a clarification about an edited clip or an indication that a claim has not been independently verified.

However, labels and contextual information must themselves be accurate and useful. A broad or poorly explained warning could leave users unsure about what is disputed, while an overly restrictive approach could reduce the visibility of legitimate reporting and public-interest discussion.

Similarly, efforts to diversify recommendations should not be reduced to presenting every claim as equally credible. Different viewpoints can be relevant to understanding a public debate, but factual accuracy and the quality of supporting evidence remain important considerations.

The central challenge is to protect users from demonstrably misleading or harmful material while preserving space for lawful political expression, criticism and reporting. The advisory’s emphasis on relevant and credible information reflects the importance of both content quality and the way information is distributed.

What happens next for Facebook and Instagram?

Meta will need to review the recommendation and content-ranking mechanisms covered by the advisory, particularly their role in amplifying material about ongoing public events. The company will also need to consider how its systems identify content that attracts significant reach and may require urgent review.

One area of focus is likely to be the handling of photographs, videos and graphics whose authenticity, date, location or context cannot be readily established by users. Another is the escalation of content that could create public-order concerns, including material that becomes widely recommended or repeatedly shown to audiences.

The advisory also calls for cooperation with law enforcement agencies and other authorised government bodies in accordance with applicable laws and prescribed timelines. The ministry’s directions therefore extend beyond the ranking of posts to include information-sharing and the handling of requests from authorised agencies.

How the measures are implemented will be important in assessing their practical impact. Clear review procedures, reliable context and transparent explanations of moderation decisions can help users understand why content is labelled, limited or escalated.

At the same time, assessing whether recommendation systems disproportionately favour particular narratives is a complex task. It requires looking beyond isolated examples to understand how content is ranked across different users, topics and circumstances. A post’s popularity alone does not establish that an algorithm has unfairly promoted it.

The advisory, as described in the available report, does not provide a detailed public account of the evidence behind the reported concerns or specify how the ministry will evaluate Meta’s response. It therefore remains important to distinguish the government’s stated concerns from any conclusions that may emerge after the company’s review.

Why the Meta advisory matters for social media users

The Centre’s request underscores the growing importance of recommendation systems in shaping how people encounter news and political information online. The content visible in a user’s feed is not necessarily a complete representation of an event or of the range of available reporting.

For users following the CJP and opposition protests in Delhi, the advisory highlights the importance of checking when and where a photograph or video was recorded, reading beyond a headline or caption and comparing claims with credible reporting. A widely shared post may contain useful information, but its reach does not independently establish its accuracy.

For platforms, the issue is how to respond to misleading material and public-safety risks while applying rules consistently. For regulators, it is how to address concerns about algorithmic amplification without treating legitimate disagreement or political criticism as inherently harmful.

The October 10 advisory asks Meta to review its recommendation systems, improve the context available for content depicting public events and strengthen mechanisms for addressing material that could contribute to confusion, violence or public disorder. Its immediate significance lies in the government’s focus on both the content users encounter and the automated systems that determine how widely that content is distributed.

Whether the review leads to changes in how Facebook and Instagram recommend political and public-event content will depend on the steps Meta takes in response. The wider issue is how online platforms can make important information accessible while reducing the risks posed by misleading, manipulated or context-free material during sensitive public developments.