Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge
Transforming Moderation Policies at Meta
Meta has significantly revised its moderation strategy in the United States, as announced on Tuesday. This revision includes the elimination of fact-checking protocols, a reorganization within its trust and safety teams, and one of the most notable updates—modifications to its Hateful Conduct policy. According to coverage by Wired, substantial textual changes have been made throughout these policies. Here are several key modifications worth noting.
New Provisions on Speech Regulations
The following sections that delineate acceptable types of speech—both written and visual—are fresh additions:
- Mental Health Discussions: Allegations relating to mental illness or abnormal behavior are now permissible if associated with gender or sexual orientation. This comes amid ongoing political discourse surrounding transgender issues and homosexuality along with casual uses for terms like “strange.”
- Gender-Based Employment Limitations: Content advocating for job restrictions based on gender within military, law enforcement agencies, or educational settings is allowed if it stems from religious convictions regarding sexual orientation.
Removed Restrictions on Dehumanizing Language
A significant prohibition preventing dehumanizing descriptions targeting transgender or non-binary individuals—as using “it”—and referring to women in derogatory ways has been completely abolished.
Additionally, an introductory statement defining what types of speech policies aim to encompass has undergone revisions (with new terminology highlighted):
Individuals occasionally utilize sex– or gender-exclusive expressions when discussing entry into spaces frequently restricted by these identifiers such as bathrooms, designated schools, specific military roles and professions within law enforcement as well as health-related support groups. In some contexts surrounding political or religious discourse—including debates about transgender rights—a call for exclusion can emerge alongside derogatory language usage related to romantic separations. Our guidelines are crafted to accommodate instances of this nature.
Content Targeting COVID-19 Claims Removed
Furthermore, a specific clause that prohibited targeting individuals or communities with accusations linked to the spread of COVID-19 was also removed.
Evolving Terminology Around Hate Speech Policies
Links referencing Meta’s 2017 blog post tackling challenging questions associated with hate speech have been eliminated; terms previously used concerning hate speech have now transitioned into “hateful conduct.”
A New Exception Under Existing Rules
Though still disapproving content related to accessing spaces and social services based on protected characteristics remains intact under current rules—here’s an added exception (highlighted text indicates new information):
- No discrimination shall occur based upon protected characteristics except in cases involving exclusions defined by sex or gender limitations within common areas assigned by these identifiers like restrooms and athletic teams specifically designated schools.
The Implications for LGBTQ+ Communities
Last year GLAAD reported concerns over how inadequately Meta responded towards removing posts breaching their hate speech regulations even before these adjustments were implemented.This raises alarm bells since recent changes further diminish existing safeguards set forth against online harassment targeted at marginalized communities such as LGBTQ individuals.
Sara Kate Ellis, President & CEO at GLAAD stated: “By dismantling critical hate speech protections through changes lacking foresight Metas initiatives essentially provide tacit approval for inciting hostility amongst vulnerable groups including women immigrants thus enabling harmful rhetoric all while positioning themselves opportunistically—all under guise protecting free expression.”
A Shift in Policy Direction from Leadership Perspectives
The recently appointed head policy chief Joel Kaplan remarked stating they would “remove numerous constraints across discussions covering immigration issues ,gender identity debates often featuring heavily across various platforms .It can’t be justifiable observing legislative bodies sanction prevailing dialogues outside their digital ecosystem.” The covered reports noted similar sentiments indicating that certain organizations formerly collaborating closely felt blindsided feeling succumbing surprise restructuring might incapacitate their ability substantially moving forward.