Meta’s policy changes allow calling gay and trans people ‘mentally ill’ while removing a ban on referring to women as ‘household objects.’
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, unveiled a sweeping overhaul of its content moderation policies in the United States on Tuesday. These changes, which include the removal of certain hate speech protections and adjustments to the company’s Hateful Conduct policy, have sparked significant concern among advocacy groups and industry observers alike. The updates signal a shift in how Meta approaches sensitive and controversial topics, leaving many to question the broader implications for user safety and platform accountability.
Here’s a closer look at the most impactful changes and what they could mean for users.
New Additions to the Hateful Conduct Policy
Meta has introduced several new clauses to its policies governing speech on its platforms. These changes appear to carve out allowances for certain types of speech that were previously restricted. Notable additions include:
- Mental Illness Allegations: “We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like ‘weird.’”This change raises concerns about how such allowances could be misused to demean or stigmatize individuals based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.
- Gender-Based Job Limitations: “We do allow content arguing for gender-based limitations of military, law enforcement, and teaching jobs. We also allow the same content based on sexual orientation, when the content is based on religious beliefs.”By permitting such arguments under the guise of religious or political discourse, the policy potentially opens the door to discriminatory rhetoric against marginalized groups.
The Removal of Key Protections
One of the most alarming aspects of the update is the removal of specific bans on dehumanizing language. For instance:
- A prior rule explicitly forbidding the dehumanizing reference to transgender or non-binary people as “it” has been entirely removed.
- Another section banning content that refers to women as “household objects, property, or objects in general” has also been eliminated.
Advocates worry that the absence of these safeguards could embolden harmful narratives, particularly against women and LGBTQ+ communities.
Broader Speech Allowances: A Double-Edged Sword
The opening statement of Meta’s policies has been significantly altered to reflect a more permissive stance on controversial speech. Previously, the policies were framed to protect health or support groups. Now, they explicitly state:
“People sometimes use sex- or gender-exclusive language when discussing access to spaces often limited by sex or gender, such as access to bathrooms, specific schools, specific military, law enforcement, or teaching roles, and health or support groups. Other times, they call for exclusion or use insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights, immigration, or homosexuality. Finally, sometimes people curse at a gender in the context of a romantic break-up. Our policies are designed to allow room for these types of speech.”
This shift emphasizes a broader tolerance for potentially inflammatory speech under the banner of political and religious discourse, a move critics say could normalize hate speech and harassment.
Other Notable Removals
Several prior restrictions have been lifted, including:
- Pandemic-Related Misinformation: A rule banning the targeting of people or groups “with claims that they have or spread the novel coronavirus” has been scrapped.
- References to Hate Speech: Some instances where the term “hate speech” appeared have been replaced with the more ambiguous term “hateful conduct.” This semantic shift may signal a broader redefinition of what constitutes harmful content on Meta’s platforms.
- Exceptions for Gender-Based Exclusions: The policy now includes a new clause stating that content advocating for sex- or gender-based exclusion from spaces such as restrooms, sports leagues, and health groups is allowed, provided it aligns with political or religious beliefs.
Advocacy Groups Sound the Alarm
LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations, including GLAAD, have been vocal in their criticism of Meta’s policy updates. Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO of GLAAD, issued a scathing statement:
“Without these necessary hate speech and other policies, Meta is giving the green light for people to target LGBTQ people, women, immigrants, and other marginalized groups with violence, vitriol, and dehumanizing narratives. With these changes, Meta is continuing to normalize anti-LGBTQ hatred for profit — at the expense of its users and true freedom of expression. Fact-checking and hate speech policies protect free speech.”
Meta’s Justification
In a note from Meta’s new policy chief, Joel Kaplan, the company defended the changes, stating:
“We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity, and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate. It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms.”
Kaplan’s remarks suggest that Meta views its platforms as venues for free and open discourse, akin to public forums. However, this rationale has been met with skepticism from critics who argue that loosening restrictions on hate speech could exacerbate online harassment and real-world harm.
Partner Organizations Blindsided
Meta’s decision has also left some of its partner organizations reeling. According to Wired, several groups that previously collaborated with Meta on moderation efforts were not consulted about the changes. An unnamed editor at a fact-checking organization described the move as a significant blow to their work, warning that “the effect of the decision is going to eventually drain us out.”
What’s Next?
The implications of Meta’s policy overhaul are vast and complex. While the company’s stance on free expression may resonate with some, the removal of specific protections raises serious questions about the safety and inclusivity of its platforms. As advocacy groups and policymakers scrutinize these changes, the broader debate about the role of social media in shaping public discourse continues to evolve.
For now, users of Facebook and Instagram should remain vigilant and informed about the shifting landscape of moderation policies. The balance between free expression and protecting marginalized communities remains a critical challenge—one that Meta’s latest changes have only made more contentious.
