Meta is now granting its users new freedom to post a wide array of derogatory remarks about races, nationalities, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, and gender identities, training materials obtained by The Intercept reveal.

Examples of newly permissible speech on Facebook and Instagram highlighted in the training materials include:

“Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit.”

“Gays are freaks.”

“Look at that tranny (beneath photo of 17 year old girl).”

The changes are part of a broader policy shift that includes the suspension of the company’s fact-checking program. The goal, Meta said Tuesday, is to “allow more speech by lifting restrictions.”

While Kaplan and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg have couched the changes as a way to allow users to engage more freely in ideological dissent and political debate, the previously unreported policy materials reviewed by The Intercept illustrate the extent to which purely insulting and dehumanizing rhetoric is now accepted.

Kate Klonick, a content moderation policy expert who spoke to The Intercept, contests Meta’s framing that the new rules as less politicized, given the latitude they provide to attack conservative bogeymen.

“Drawing lines around content moderation was always a political enterprise,” said Klonick, an associate professor of law at St. John’s University and scholar of content moderation policy. “To pretend these new rules are any more ‘neutral’ than the old rules is a farce and a lie.”

She sees the shifts announced by Kaplan — a former White House deputy chief of staff under George W. Bush and Zuckerberg’s longtime liaison to the American right — as “the open political capture of Facebook, particularly because the changes are pandering to a particular party.”

Another policy shift: “Referring to the target as genitalia or anus are now considered non-violating and are allowed.” As an example of what is now permissible, Facebook offers up: “Italians are dickheads.”

While many of the examples and underlying policies seem muddled, the document shows clarity around allowing disparaging remarks about transgender people, including children. Noting that “‘Tranny’ is no longer a designated slur and is now non-violating,” the materials provide three examples of speech that should no longer be removed: “Trannies are a problem,” “Look at that tranny (beneath photo of 17 year old girl),” and “Get these trannies out of my school (beneath photo of high school students).”

According to Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Meta’s hate speech protections have historically been well-intentioned, however deeply flawed in practice. “While this has often resulted in over-moderation that I and many others have criticized, these examples demonstrate that Meta’s policy changes are political in nature and not intended to simply allow more freedom of expression,” York said.

Meta has faced international scrutiny for its approach to hate speech, most notably after role that hate speech and other dehumanizing language on Facebook played in fomenting genocide in Myanmar. Following criticism of its mishandling of Myanmar, where the United Nations found Facebook had played a “determining role” in the slaughter of over 650,000 Rohingya Muslims, the company spent years touting its investment in preventing the spread of similar rhetoric in the future.

“The reason many of these lines were drawn where they were is because hate speech often doesn’t stay speech, it turns into real world conduct,” said Klonick, the content moderation scholar.

    • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      That’s how *free speech proves itself to be a thoroughly outdated and backward ideal

      How does it feel to still think like someone from three centuries ago?

      If I wind you up enough are you going to threaten to get in your schooner and come and beat me with a cat-o-nine-tails, six months from now? 😂

        • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Freedom to use hate speech to harm minorities isn’t the kind of freedom I’m after. How about freedom for everyone to be themselves without being marginalized?

          Liberal ideology is full of these freedoms to oppress. Capitalists dictatorially control workers and the economy, hate speech is kosher, everyone has the freedom to try to find a job that can allow them to afford shelter.

          How about people are guaranteed a basic standard of life? How about oppression is opposed?

          Collective freedom is more important than individual freedom.

          • spacecadet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Collective freedom? So tyranny by democracy? Which will inevitably be tyranny by the majority of an ever increasing minority.

            • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              No, that’s not what that means at all. Tyranny of the majority is exactly what you have now where it’s ok to speak hate towards minority groups. What Orwellian shit is this conversation?

              I’m telling you that the freedom from oppression and well-being of everyone needs to be guaranteed, and that means resisting hate and fascists with censorship and violence if needed. The freedom to oppress isn’t freedom.

              • spacecadet@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                You’re literally arguing for Orwellian tactics. Censorship and quelling dissent with violence. Who gets to decide? You? What if I view something as hate speech and you don’t? Is it hate speech?

                • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  hmmm yes it’s impossible to tell when speech is harmful to oppressed groups the only option is to pretend all speech is the same