Instagram’s pivot to video is leaving behind disabled users

It’s no surprise to anyone who spends any time online that social media has recently taken a drastic shift towards video-first content. In June, Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, announced that the platform was “no longer a photo-sharing app”. Referencing TikTok and YouTube as direct competitors, he made it clear that the turn-to-video was here to stay. 

This shift has been riddled with dissent – from mega-influencers like Kylie Jenner and Kim Kardashian to professional photographers whose livelihoods depend on the app, many users have expressed their upset. One particular group that’s been overlooked through this transition is the online community of disabled and chronically ill users, who often struggle with both the creation and consumption of such video content. 

Instagram hosts a community of influencers, content creators and followers who support one another through the complex realities of being disabled in the modern world. The platform, as well as social media more generally, can be a lifeline for many disabled and chronically ill people. When you have to spend a large amount of your time in your home, whether due to the symptoms of your disability or in shielding from the ongoing pandemic, you come to rely on your digital networks. As such, any shift in the platforms’ algorithm will have a major effect on these users.

What does the disabled community think?

So what will this push for video-content really mean for this community? As Jameisha Prescod, a disabled journalist and digital creator who runs the account @youlookokaytome puts it, “it’s a complicated topic.” Disabled communities aren’t a monolith – some may find video content more accessible, while others will find it fundamentally inaccessible. Prescod themselves prefers creating video content as it allows them to “express themselves with more nuance”. They’re aware, however, that this isn’t the case for everyone. Creating video content tends to be much more time-consuming than creating stills-based content, with more energy required to both shoot and edit. This is a problem for chronically ill users, who tend to struggle more with extreme fatigue.

“‘Sure, no one is forcing us to only make video content,’ but it’s becoming evident that those who can’t keep up with the shift will be edged out of our feeds.” 

Claudia Walder, founder and editor-in-chief of Able Zine, finds both creating and consuming video content to be inaccessible. Living with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), a complex condition characterised by extreme fatigue and a wide range of disabling symptoms, she explains that creating any content on social media is fatigue-inducing for her, but with the added skills and attention needed to create videos, it now feels practically impossible for her to maintain a consistent social media presence. “I’ve had to suffer to make content that will be more shareable because of the algorithm,” Walder says. Emily Simmons, founder and editor of Dubble Zine, agrees with this – “to make one (video) post would now take as much energy as it would’ve to make like three (photo) posts. It just feels like it’d be impossible to compete with non-disabled creators.”

Another problem that arises here, as Walder argues, is the technological inaccessibility many users will encounter. “Many people find it harder to use the in-app software (for video curation),” says Walder. With digital natives perhaps finding the shift easier, how many people will be left behind without the required skill set to make such algorithm-preferred content?

The worrying direction

The push for video-first content is the most concerning aspect of this issue – it’s been made clear that it’s the only sort of content that will be prioritized by Instagram. Mosseri declared that “more and more of [the platform] is [going to] become video over time.” This self-manufactured push can be seen in the way Instagram is offering financial incentives to influencers who create video content over stills, paying creators thousands of dollars in bonuses to make reels. Prescod sees that “the push (for video) could make disabled and chronically ill content creators feel pressured to create videos… Sure, no one is forcing us to only make video content” but it’s becoming evident that those who can’t keep up with the shift will be edged out of our feeds. 

Walder shared this anxiety, along with a more general concern about the way consistent posters are favored in the feed. “The people with the most followings post most often, which is pretty impossible (to do) when you have chronic fatigue. I don’t think I’d ever be able to match that unless all I was doing with my life was working on my social media.” What does this mean for the many disabled people whose livelihoods (both materially and socially) rely on the feed showing their content? It seems that the disabled community is being left behind in this rigid, exhausting algorithm. 

The problem isn’t just with the creation of such content, either, but the consumption. The change risks a significant amount of inaccessibility and exclusion for people with sensory processing issues, such as neurodivergent people – opening up the app and being bombarded with auto-playing video content, potentially including loud music and flashing, may soon be an unavoidable risk for such users. For D/deaf and/or blind users, their experience of the app is sidelined. “The thing that really bothers me about video content is that people create these videos where the audio says one thing and then the captioning says something else. It’s very inaccessible because my brain isn’t able to process this sort of pseudo-captioning… it seems like digital accessibility is being forgotten in video content,” Walder argues. 

“I do think disabled users are being forgotten. I don’t see access as being prioritized enough.”

Prescod agrees that “accessibility seems to be something that gets added on afterwards rather than considered at the beginning. So many apps are focusing on video and it’s only within the last year or so that auto-captions have become widely available.” Creators aren’t explicitly encouraged to include captions as a mandatory part of their content, and when it comes to auto-captioning, there’s also the problem that the captions can be riddled with inaccuracies. 

While they could still be used more consistently, still image descriptions aren’t uncommon to see across the platform. In contrast, video and audio descriptions seem to have been completely overlooked in this new rollout. “(They’re) pretty much non-existent on Instagram – there’s no place to put them (in the post itself) and nobody really does it manually or has an understanding of how to do it,” Simmons says. “I do think disabled users are being forgotten. I don’t see access as being prioritized enough.”

Pressure needs to be put on social media companies 

Video content in itself doesn’t have to be inaccessible – with a more explicit focus on accessibility features in the creation and sharing of videos, the rollout of new features doesn’t have to leave disabled communities behind. “The access options should be super visible and obvious for anyone posting content. You should be encouraged to edit the captions if they’re inaccurate, for example,” Simmons suggests. 

Prescod argues that “more pressure should be put on social media companies to create a system where it becomes easier for users to make their content accessible.” On an individual user basis, they suggest that “individuals consider making their videos with subtitles and image/video descriptions. That extra effort allows instagram to be enjoyed by more people.”

The biggest issue with Instagram’s turn to video, however, appears to be the decision that it wants to significantly abandon stills-based content. Simmons wonders: “why Instagram can’t just keep doing both? Why do they need to completely neglect photo stills content? The biggest problem is the fact that it’s being shunted out completely… they just need to stop trying to be TikTok.” When image-based content isn’t prioritized, who slowly fades from our feeds? Whose voices do we stop hearing? Perhaps if social media companies cared more about what minoritised communities needed on their platforms, these voices wouldn’t already be fading from our feeds.