Meta’s New Policy Allows Hate Speech, Cuts Back Fact-Checking Tools

Meta has implemented a significant policy shift across its platforms—Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Threads—initiating a radar-wide rollback of third-party fact-checking in favor of “community notes.” This move, launched in the U.S. this January under CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s direction, empowers users to flag misleading posts and add contextual notes, with community consensus activating those notes. The stated goal is to rein in overzealous content moderation and improve free expression.

Meta has also softened its stance on hate speech, particularly around sensitive subjects like gender, sexual orientation, and immigration. The platform now permits users to describe LGBTQ+ individuals as “mentally ill” or label transgender people as non-existent—terminology that would have previously been prohibited. Such changes align with Zuckerberg’s assertion that if discourse is allowed on TV or in Congress, it should be allowed on Meta. While this draws praise from conservatives and free-speech advocates, it has alarmed civil rights groups advocating for vulnerable communities.

Policy enforcement has also evolved. Meta plans to reduce algorithmic flagging of low-level infractions, instead relying more on user reports and human review for less severe cases. Automated systems will prioritize only illegal or high-severity violations. Meta’s recent enforcement report shows a 33% drop in content removals—in part due to this strategic shift—though some exceptions, like child safety content, have seen an increase in removals.

This recalibration comes amid rising concerns—from watchdogs, advocacy groups, and government bodies worldwide—that receding moderation could fuel hate speech, misinformation, and threats to public safety. Both the EU and UK have voiced potential regulatory conflicts, citing misalignment with frameworks like the Digital Services Act. Critics warn that the rollback represents a de facto MAGA makeover, favoring conservative voices at the expense of marginalized communities.

Supporters argue the strategy encourages genuine dialogue and counters hidden bias in editorial moderation. This approach champions the “wisdom of the crowd,” echoing models seen on platforms like X. Yet experts caution that scaling community-driven moderation without robust safeguards could leave spaces exposed to manipulation, manipulative bots, foreign influence campaigns, or widespread misinformation. Concerns center especially on areas like health, public safety, and marginalized communities.

Meta also relocated its Trust & Safety review teams from California to Texas, seeking to reduce perceived editorial bias and align with its free-speech vision—an operational gesture in line with its broader realignment.

As Meta phases in these changes, the platform faces a complex task: realizing its commitment to freer expression while safeguarding users from hate, disinformation, and harm. Regulators in the EU and UK are already assessing whether the policies meet safety standards, and minority advocates are demanding reversals of harmful language allowances. Meanwhile, Meta emphasizes its new community-first approach as the next evolution in social dialogue. The coming months will reveal whether it leads to healthier public discourse—or opens the door to unintended consequences.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe & share!