On Tuesday, January 7th, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced major changes to the company’s content moderation policy, including the removal of independent fact checkers. These changes will allow users to express their opinions, including harmful and discriminatory opinions, without the same level of moderation as before. New guidelines prohibit users from labeling LGBTQ+ people as “mentally ill” or making similar claims, especially in the context of political or religious debates about issues such as transgender rights or homosexuality. is now allowed.
According to a statement on Meta’s updated hate speech guidelines, the new policy shift will allow such terms to be used in what they call a “general non-serious” manner. Specifically, allegations of mental illness or abnormality related to discussions of gender or sexual orientation are permissible as long as these comments fit within the framework of broader political or religious discourse. of Updated guideline status Due to “political and religious discourses about transgenderism and homosexuality,” terms such as “weird” and “mentally ill” may be used to describe LGBTQ+ individuals.
The backlash among Meta’s LGBTQ+ employees is swift. According to 404 Media coverageMany employees are absent from work in protest of the changes, citing the emotional and psychological toll the new policies have on their mental health. One employee expressed his distress by posting on Meta’s internal platform Workplace: I want to remind you to take time to take care of your mental health. ”
The controversy has also drawn criticism from high-ranking figures in the meta. Helle Thorning-Schmidt, co-chair of the Meta Oversight Committee, publicly expressed concerns about this policy change, particularly the potential impact on vulnerable groups such as LGBTQ+ and transgender people. . In a BBC interview today Thorning-Schmidt said on his show that he and other members of the board are “very concerned” about the impact of the policy, especially given its timing ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House. said.
“We are extremely concerned about gender rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and transgender people’s rights on our platforms as we see many examples of how hate speech can cause real-life harm.” said Thorningschmidt. “We will be monitoring that space closely.”
Meta’s decision to do away with independent fact checkers and content moderation has sparked alarm among critics, who say it will open the door to more harmful content and reduce responsibility for those who spread hate speech. It’s ringing. LGBTQ+ advocates, including current and former Meta employees, say the policy change could lead to a more hostile online environment, especially for vulnerable people who are already at risk of discrimination and violence. They have expressed concern that this may be the case.
However, Mark Zuckerberg defended the new policy, saying it was designed to go “back to basics” and prioritize free expression on the platform. In a statement, he said the changes are part of a broader effort to reduce errors, simplify policies and restore what he called “the freedom of expression that platforms are supposed to protect.”
Critics say the timing of the policy change is concerning, especially as it comes just weeks before President Trump’s second term begins. In a changing political climate, many are concerned that the policy changes are part of a response to far-right speech and broader trends that polarize political opinion.
The decision has sparked heated debate across social media platforms, with many asking Mehta to reconsider the new policy. LGBTQ+ advocates say the company is failing to prioritize the safety and well-being of its most vulnerable users. By contrast, proponents of the change argue that more open debate needs to be allowed, even if it means tolerating controversial or offensive opinions.
As the situation continues to unfold, Meta employees, LGBTQ+ activists, and policymakers are watching closely to see how the company responds to the growing backlash. For now, many employees within the company are grappling with the impact of the policy change, both personally and professionally, and whether the company will be able to balance freedom of expression with the need to protect users from harm. I have doubts.
Source: Gayety – gayety.co
