Skip Navigation
55 comments

  • I never want to hear the normies say they’re the ones with repressed opinions ever again.

    Bro, society panders to you over and over and over and like a spoiled child y’all still whine it’s not enough. They even threw a tantrum over the mid 2010s era where there was supposedly enough room for all of us.

  • They're also gonna allow outright disinfo when it comes to transphobia because it's "a controversial issue" where they don't wanna take a stance anymore (not that they did much previously). Brace yourself, shit's gonna get real.

  • I'm guessing that Meta got some flack form this, because the new policy has changed.

    Not that this allegation isn't true, though. Somehow I keep needing to double check because this shit doesn't feel believable, and it still keeps ending up as true.

    • 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.

      Reworded, maybe, but the substance is still very much there.

      • That's from a different section. The exact same wording is still there as of the current version:

        Content targeting a person or group of people on the basis of their protected characteristic(s) (in written or visual form) with: [...]

        Insults, including those about: [...] Mental characteristics, including but not limited to allegations of stupidity, intellectual capacity, and mental illness, and unsupported comparisons between PC groups on the basis of inherent intellectual capacity.

        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.”

        So pending clarification, it seems to say that all insults targeting groups of "protected charactistic(s)" including those about "mental illness" are prohibited - well, except for those against LGBT, 'cause politics and religion. The clause directly above this one goes to rule that you can't call Zuckerberg a coward - that counts as "hateful conduct" - but LGBT peoples can be implied to be "mentally ill" or "abnormal." That's open season. We're just conversational props for "political and religious discourse" and, according to Advocate's interpretation of the changes, can now also be literally compared to an inanimate object.

        "Protections against comparing women and LGBTQ+ people to inanimate objects, such as referring to transgender individuals as “it,” have been eliminated. Similarly, statements denying the existence of protected groups or asserting that they “shouldn’t exist” are now permitted under the revised guidelines."

        https://www.advocate.com/news/meta-policies-lgbtq-attacks

    • You did notice that they are still explicitly greenlighting "insulting language" (their words) for trans and gay people and immigrants, and all forms of transphobic discourse common in the US and UK, right?

55 comments