With more than 1 billion users on Facebook, and millions more active on sites such as YouTube and Twitter, it has become obvious that social media is an important platform for businesses.
Connecting with the huge variety of consumers already on these sites can open up significant opportunities for marketing and lead generation. Additionally, social media monitoring provides insight and understanding into how your industry, audience and competitors are reacting to market trends and products.
As well as giving businesses and consumers a platform to share their thoughts and participate in ongoing conversations, social media is also a channel through which many people access news stories and important information.
A recent study from Pew Research found that 64 per cent of adults are active on Facebook, and 30 per cent are using the site to receive news. This means that approximately half of the people using Facebook trust the site to deliver their news.
Similarly, 16 per cent of US adults are active on Twitter, with exactly half of those (8 per cent) accessing the news through tweets.
Not only are users reading news on social media, but they are also participating in the sharing and telling of stories. Half of all social network users have shared news stories on their own profiles and a further 46 per cent have discussed news on social media.
However, while social networking sites are a popular media through which to access news, Pew Research found that users on these sites spend significantly less time engaging with the news they read.
Readers who visit news stories directly through a provider’s website spend an average of 4 minutes and 36 seconds on each page. In comparison, those who arrive through a link on Facebook spend just 1 minute 41 seconds reading the page.
This shows that while news is being shared and read on social media sites, engagement is significantly greater when consumers go out of their way to access the stories.
Loren is an experienced marketing professional who translates data and insights using Isentia solutions into trends and research, bringing clients closer to the benefits of audience intelligence. Loren thrives on introducing the groundbreaking ways in which data and insights can help a brand or organisation, enabling them to exceed their strategic objectives and goals.
In the wake of the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal, there have been a myriad of changes impacting users of Facebook and Instagram content recently. These changes were made without any notice and were effective immediately which has impacted third-party apps worldwide.
Albeit the speed in which the changes have been made is likely to have been partly driven by the pressure to tighten data practices and potentially align certain timing as CEO Mark Zuckerberg prepares to testify before Congress next week to answer questions about the company’s privacy and data policies.From the perspective of everyday users accessing the content you know and love via the Facebook and Instagram apps will see little to no change. For developers like us on the other hand, the impacts are significant and are only a hint of what is yet to come.In case you missed it, the changes made have been many and impact all third-party apps, whether legitimate or not.
Given the changes have been quick, varied and came without prior notification, we’ve pulled together a quick summary of a few that left developers and other third-party content users of these content feeds frustrated:
Instagram have removed 17 ways of accessing content
This means something as simple as code to access recent posts of a public company, suddenly stopped working. Quick changes had to be made to use alternative methods.
Facebook & Instagram have removed access to many fields
Fields like how many followers a user has, or how many posts you have made, but many more have gone.
25x drop in Instagram content
The Instagram API restricted the flow of content by 25x, meaning that public posts previously being collected has been reduced significantly, requiring different approaches to be taken that are more efficient.
These are only a few of the changes that have happened with more expect in future. With CTO Mike Schroepfer commenting that they will lock down access, review previously allowed apps, and then hand out access to the apps that deserve it.
While this is promising from the perspective that Facebook is taking action to breath some confidence back into their data practices, it will still be interesting to see how they now start to crack down on third-party apps that are using and abusing content. With the advent of AI and machine learning, the content which appeared innocuous can now be exploited and abused in the wrong hands. That means Facebook is forcing all apps that have previously been approved for accessing Events, Groups and Pages, have to be reviewed again.
For the developers working on these changes behind the scenes, it's a difficult process but something we monitor constantly to ensure the client experience is supported, and uncompromised. While at times frustrating, it’s also fascinating to watch the complexities of today's interconnected environment play, shift and unfold.
Ian Young, Isentia Technical Architect
"
["post_title"]=>
string(42) "No warning to Facebook & Instagram changes"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(274) "In the wake of the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal, there have been a myriad of changes impacting users of Facebook and Instagram content recently. These changes were made without any notice and were effective immediately which has impacted third-party apps worldwide. "
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(40) "no-warning-to-facebook-instagram-changes"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2019-06-26 04:09:17"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2019-06-26 04:09:17"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(36) "https://isentia.wpengine.com/?p=1614"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
No warning to Facebook & Instagram changes
In the wake of the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal, there have been a myriad of changes impacting users of Facebook and Instagram content recently. These changes were made without any notice and were effective immediately which has impacted third-party apps worldwide.
It’s been a whirlwind year trying to keep up with the various changes made by social media platforms – especially for professional communicators, developers, agencies, and brands.
At the same time as understanding and usage of the term ‘API’ has accelerated across offices worldwide, social media platforms have begun to restrict access to their application programming interfaces (APIs). With implications ranging from global politics to individual user privacy, that trend is showing no signs of stopping.
API changes have been introduced in order to reduce risks around data privacy, security concerns for users and stamping out improper use of user data.
Most of the changes can be categorised as:
How often and how much data can be requested (rate limit reductions); and
Type of data available (restrictions on user-identifiable data)
Generally, these are positive changes for the whole ecosystem. Users can be reassured at an individual level that there are more controls in place and consideration given to matters of privacy and the prevention of misuse. Facebook’s ‘Here Together’ video, released in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica data breach, reflects some of this desired messaging and the drives for these changes.
The latest changes have come from Instagram and more are set to be introduced on 11 Dec 2018.
Here's how the changes impact the three types of Instagram analysis:
Owned media (for your brands’ own Instagram accounts): Better data on your owned Instagram profiles, but they need to be Instagram business profiles and you have to authenticate to access this data.
Public accounts (for other brands or influencer’s channels): This use case no longer exists for Instagram - there is no longer any data available for public Instagram accounts you don't own.
Listening: Public hashtag listening on Instagram is no longer supported. Brands will need to move to brand mentions, photo tags and related hashtags.
These may not be the last of the changes, but they are necessary growing pains to regain user trust and provide higher quality authentic engagements. For small businesses and influencers these changes are fairly straightforward - however for those looking to manage communications or marketing strategies they present new challenges in order to stay informed.
These changes apply across the board so all API users will need to jump the same hoops and prove that both privacy measures are met and use of data is acceptable. If you’re interested, you can learn more about the official changes from Instagram read on here.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(61) "More changes to social media API's, the latest from Instagram"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(183) "It’s been a whirlwind year trying to keep up with the various changes made by social media platforms – especially for professional communicators, developers, agencies, and brands."
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(59) "more-changes-to-social-media-apis-the-latest-from-instagram"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2019-06-26 04:31:57"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2019-06-26 04:31:57"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(36) "https://isentia.wpengine.com/?p=1580"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
More changes to social media API’s, the latest from Instagram
It’s been a whirlwind year trying to keep up with the various changes made by social media platforms – especially for professional communicators, developers, agencies, and brands.
As the campaign began, election coverage was dominated by cost-of-living pressures, leadership scrutiny, and policy promises, with both major parties positioning themselves as the answer to Australians' economic concerns. Labor’s pledge to crack down on supermarket price gouging and the Coalition’s push for fuel excise cuts framed a debate over immediate financial relief versus long-term economic stability.
Meanwhile, discussion on social media took time to catch up with the news cycle, and reflected both frustration and polarisation, with content on tax policy, government spending, and leadership trustworthiness fuelling engagement. The campaign’s tone was further shaped by high-profile moments, including Senator Jacqui Lambie’s emotional exchange over public service cuts and Peter Dutton’s push to capitalise on voter discontent, reinforcing the election’s framing as a referendum on economic management.
Financial stability, such as supermarket pricing, fuel costs, and tax changes. Leadership trust and credibility are also key drivers of attention, with moments of high emotion or political confrontation.
On the heels of the federal budget announcement on March 24, which forecasts a decade of deficits, news coverage highlighted the Albanese government’s focus on energy bill relief and Medicare spending to appeal to voters. Treasurer Jim Chalmers linked the budget to rising global uncertainties, including the impact of US President Trump’s trade agenda.
Coverage framed the campaign as a contest over economic management, with viral headlines emphasising Labor’s energy bill relief and the Dutton’s fuel excise cuts. A widely shared ABC analysis dissected the competing tax plans, while a Reddit thread debating the impact of Dutton’s fuel excise proposal gained thousands of comments. Meanwhile, opposition leader Peter Dutton's response positioned the Liberal Party as prioritising immediate cost-of-living relief, sparking mixed reactions online. Both major parties are also expected to prioritise domestic gas supplies, with the Liberals proposing a gas reservation scheme, a move likely to be mirrored by Labor—an issue that has driven heated debate on social platforms.
As cost-of-living issues dominate, media outlets underscore the increasingly fragmented political landscape, with minor parties gaining traction and complicating the path to a majority government.
Social media discussions on the 2025 Australian federal election are increasingly centred on energy and housing policies, particularly Peter Dutton's plans. Housing affordability has emerged as a key concern, fueled by moments like Prime Minister Albanese being heckled over handling of the housing crisis. A far-right vlogger interrupted Albanese's press conference in Brisbane, linking the housing issue to immigration—a narrative gaining traction online. On platforms like Reddit and Instagram, users question the credibility of Dutton’s energy price cut proposals, with his refusal to release modelling drawing criticism. Protests, like the one at Brisbane’s XXXX Brewery on March 29, further fuel debate over his stance on gas and nuclear energy. A popular quote from Jason Clare, shared by The Project TV, added fuel to the fire: "This is a distraction from his nuclear reactor policy which is about as popular now as a fart in an elevator."
This combination of frustration, disbelief, and growing scrutiny highlights the importance of accessible, relatable political messaging, especially as voters increasingly turn to online platforms to engage with election issues.
Attention was heavily focused on Peter Dutton's criticisms of Prime Minister Albanese, with his claims that Australia is "going backwards" and promises of "relief now" drawing backlash. Critics have pointed out Dutton’s apparent alignment with US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric and policies, leading to comparisons between the two leaders. On March 27, a widespread reaction emerged questioning why Albanese would invite Trump to Australia, suggesting it was a politically risky move. Meanwhile, the debate surrounding the federal budget heated up, with Albanese's government unveiling new tax cuts for workers ahead of the election, only for the Shadow Treasurer to declare that they would repeal these cuts if the Liberals won.
Coming out of the Federal Budget, social media audiences shared mixed reactions, with many pushing for more progressive measures like taxing the fossil fuel industry to fund universal basic services and addressing wealth inequality with The Guardian's explainer video drawing attention to the line "lots of little treats" promised for Australians. As the election approaches, a recurring theme in the commentary is the desire for systemic change.
Leading social media posts from March 24–30, 2025, highlight public frustration with key election issues: cost of living, Trump’s influence, tax cuts, and gas and energy policy.
A viral Reddit post warning of how a Liberal victory could cost around 40,000 public service jobs, sparked debate on outsourcing and economic fallout. Concerns over Trump-style politics intensified after journalist Quentin Dempster warned of ABC defunding under Dutton. Jim Chalmers’ 7.30 interview gained traction for exposing inconsistencies in Dutton’s tax stance. Meanwhile, a protest at Brisbane’s XXXX Brewery against Dutton’s gas and nuclear policies ignited further debate over energy costs.
These discussions reflect mounting scepticism over political promises on affordability, fairness, and sustainability.
Media coverage has framed the election as a contest over economic management, focusing on tax cuts, Medicare, and cost-of-living relief. Meanwhile, social media tells a more polarised story, with viral posts amplifying concerns about public service cuts, leadership trust, and Trump-style politics. While traditional outlets highlight policy promises, online conversations centre on credibility and systemic change. As the campaign unfolds, will media narratives align with voter priorities, or will audience-driven discourse take the lead?
As the election campaign progresses, the question remains: Will political leaders adjust their approach to reflect public sentiment, or will the disconnect between media coverage and voter priorities continue to shape the debate?
Setting the stage for election 2025: early media narratives & social media’s growing influence
As the campaign began, election coverage was dominated by cost-of-living pressures, leadership scrutiny, and policy promises, with both major parties positioning themselves as the answer to Australians’ economic concerns. Labor’s pledge to crack down on supermarket price gouging and the Coalition’s push for fuel excise cuts framed a debate over immediate financial relief versus long-term […]
While renewables like wind and solar are often framed as the future of energy, the renewables market faces many challenges in seeing that journey through, especially regarding Australia’s Paris climate agreements. The path to a clean energy future in Australia is fraught with disruptions and distractions, as media reports, and exploring the factors shaping media coverage of energy alternatives and clean energy reveal a shifting understanding of renewable energy sources.
Peak media coverage of renewables centres on government actions seen as hindering clean energy progress. Stories like keeping Eraring operational, nuclear energy debates, and delays in environmental law reforms highlight a perception of indecision on ecological issues. While traditional media spikes around policy updates, social media discussions are steadily growing, reflecting increasing public engagement with Australia’s renewable energy transition. Analysing these trends reveals how media narratives shape and respond to audience perceptions in this evolving debate.
Renewable energy is widely hailed as a cleaner, cheaper, and more stable alternative to fossil fuels, but media and social discussions paint a more complex picture. Concerns about affordability and feasibility are growing, driven by economic shifts, supply chain issues, and the lingering effects of the 2022 energy crisis, which media attribute to cold snaps and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, all while Australia remains heavily reliant on coal and gas exports.
Topics like grid overload, the need for better battery subsidies, and the failure of taxpayer-funded rebates to support solar businesses dominate conversations. Meanwhile, wind farms face local opposition due to environmental and land use impacts, and debates over nuclear energy disrupt investment in solar and wind, further complicating Australia’s clean energy strategy.
Nuclear energy’s potential introduction into Australia’s future energy mix has further unsettled renewables investors, with media highlighting concerns over its impact on wind and solar investments. For more context listen to our podcast interview with Pablos Holman, General Partner at Deep Future. Wind energy faces criticism for using taxpayer funds to benefit private companies, while hydrogen’s future is uncertain following high-profile project withdrawals by Fortescue and Origin. The media’s portrayal of these issues underscores ongoing public and industry doubts about Australia’s renewable transition and the role of nuclear in the energy debate.
Watch below the shifts in coverage of significant policies and strategies over time to understand why some strategies stay in the headlines while others peter out.
The Labor government’s flagship Future Made in Australia Bill is central to its energy vision and, in November, was passed to support a net-zero transition. The May budget highlighted turning Australia into a renewable energy superpower with dedicated funds for solar, battery, and hydrogen projects. However, the opposition has framed hydrogen and critical minerals tax breaks as "corporate welfare". Over time, it looks like Labor’s Future Made in Australia Bill is at a tug of war for media attention against the opposition’s nuclear strategy. Australia’s energy future, however, is not wholly detached from fossil fuels. Labor's Future Gas Strategy positions gas as a necessary transition fuel while being central to Australia’s energy and export sectors.
Climate activists criticise the Future Gas Strategy for extending Australia's reliance on fossil fuels. Media critics call it another "broken promise" by the Albanese government, highlighting mismanagement that has negatively affected energy supply and costs. Though the "Future Made in Australia" narrative around energy security resonates with many, the government’s conflicting strategies raise questions about long-term benefits and who truly gains from its policies.
Australia's shift to clean energy faces complex debates and conflicting government signals, from promoting renewables to considering nuclear power. Despite loud voices in the media advocating for taxpayers and businesses, deeper media analysis reveals multiple layers and motives behind their arguments.
Insights into media and public perceptions towards Australia’s clean energy future
While renewables like wind and solar are often framed as the future of energy, the renewables market faces many challenges in seeing that journey through, especially regarding Australia’s Paris climate agreements. The path to a clean energy future in Australia is fraught with disruptions and distractions, as media reports, and exploring the factors shaping media […]
