Meta, the parent company of Facebook, is facing immediate backlash after unveiling significant updates to its content moderation policies. These changes, announced on Tuesday, will drastically loosen restrictions on hate speech, particularly around gender identity and expressions of misogyny. Effective immediately, users are now permitted to use offensive language toward women and marginalized communities without the fear of having their posts removed.
In a quiet yet highly controversial move, Meta has redefined the boundaries of what constitutes hate speech on its platform. Women, according to the updated policy, may now be referred to as “household objects or property”—a shift that many critics say legitimizes misogynistic language. Furthermore, the company has removed previous provisions that banned dehumanizing terms for transgender and non-binary individuals, such as using the term “it.”
“The changes to Meta’s hateful conduct policy are stark and alarming,” said Sarah M. Klein, a digital rights activist. “What was once unacceptable content, based on protecting the dignity and humanity of marginalized groups, is now permitted. Facebook users can now refer to women and non-binary people in the most degrading ways possible.”
Meta’s decision to loosen its stance has extended beyond gender identity. According to a section of the updated policy, Meta will now allow “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation,” with the justification being “political and religious discourse.” Previously, such hate-driven claims would have been swiftly deleted under the platform’s moderation rules.
These modifications come as part of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s broader effort to expand the scope for “free expression” on the platform, particularly in the areas of political speech. Zuckerberg, in a statement, argued that the move reflects a growing desire for uncensored discussions. “We want people to feel that they have the freedom to discuss important social issues, even when they’re controversial,” he said.
This latest shift is seen as a strategic recalibration, allowing far more leeway in political debates, particularly concerning issues like immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. Zuckerberg mentioned that in these cases, “we will get rid of restrictions on certain topics and allow more political discussions,” giving controversial voices a platform in the name of free speech.
However, the move has sparked sharp criticism from civil rights groups and online safety experts. Critics fear this could give rise to further hatred and falsehoods spread via viral posts, emboldening extremists with minimal oversight from Meta. “By giving people the chance to spread such harmful rhetoric freely, Facebook risks worsening the spread of misinformation,” stated Jason Xu, an online safety expert. “It could turn Facebook from a space meant for connection into a breeding ground for hate.”
Meta is also ending its practice of employing independent fact-checkers in the United States. Instead, it will now rely on a user-based initiative called “community notes,” where users can correct or challenge misleading information. While Zuckerberg admitted the move might lead to more “bad content” making it through, he assured the public that the aim was to reduce instances where innocent posts or accounts were unjustly censored.
“We’re going to catch less bad stuff,” Zuckerberg said candidly, “but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.”
Other aspects of Meta’s new approach include retooling automated systems previously used to detect violations like child sexual exploitation and terrorism. Now, the systems will focus solely on extreme infractions while allowing most other content to pass through unchecked.
Amid these policy changes, Meta’s decision is interpreted by many as an attempt to gain favor with figures on the political right. Most notably, the new policies come in the wake of Facebook’s attempts to secure its relationship with former president Donald Trump and Republicans, who have long criticized the platform for censoring conservative voices. Trump praised the policy changes as a victory and suggested they were prompted by threats he made to Zuckerberg over the years, hinting at the growing political alignment between Meta and the right.
“I think these changes are probably because of the pressure I’ve put on Zuckerberg,” Trump remarked in a public appearance. “Finally, they’re listening to the people.”
In response to Trump’s praise, Meta emphasized that the policies would still combat attacks based on ethnicity, race, religion, and sexuality. However, with these changes, the platform is essentially walking a fine line between protecting freedom of speech and providing a space for discrimination to flourish. “We will still prohibit slurs and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and religion, but the content around certain groups is less restricted,” explained a Meta spokesperson.
While Meta maintains its commitment to prevent cyberbullying, harassment, and violent incitement, the potential for harm seems apparent. Advocates argue that such a radical shift could unleash a new wave of online harm, leaving previously protected groups vulnerable. For instance, the removal of restrictions against statements denying the existence of specific “protected” groups will likely provide more opportunities for far-right discourse and extremist hate speech to propagate. Additionally, the decision to allow gender-based restrictions in military, law enforcement, and educational fields is a step backwards for many advocates of gender equality and inclusivity.
Many are left questioning what Zuckerberg’s vision for “free expression” will truly look like. Is it a plea for an unfiltered marketplace of ideas, or an irresponsible invitation for online hate and division to go unchecked? The balance between liberty and safety seems set to shift on social media, with Meta’s latest decision pushing the envelope on just how far the concept of “free speech” can go.
