**Meta Eases Restrictions on Hateful Conduct Policy, Raising Alarm Over Dangerous Content**
Meta, the parent organization of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, has overhauled its **Hateful Conduct policy**, considerably easing limitations on contentious and discriminatory material. The modifications, unveiled on Tuesday, now allow users to share harmful rhetoric, including dehumanizing remarks about LGBTQ+ individuals, women, and ethnic groups.
With the revised policy, users can compare people with “protected characteristics”—such as race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion—to inanimate objects, filth, or diseases like cancer. Furthermore, Meta now permits assertions that these characteristics are inferior or ought not to exist. This represents a significant shift from the company’s prior position, which recognized that hateful conduct breeds intimidation, exclusion, and, in some instances, offline violence.
### **What Are Protected Characteristics?**
Meta identifies protected characteristics to include race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, and severe diseases. Nonetheless, the platform has eliminated crucial protections for these groups, prompting concern among advocacy organizations and users alike.
### **Explicit Support for Anti-LGBTQ+ Content**
One of the most contested elements of the adjusted policy is its clear endorsement of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. In a video released Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended the changes by stating that the former limitations were “out of touch with mainstream discourse.”
“We permit claims of mental illness or abnormality when related to gender or sexual orientation, due to political and religious discourse surrounding transgender issues and homosexuality as well as the common non-serious use of terms like ‘weird,'” Meta clarified.
This stands in stark contrast to decades of research from the American Psychological Association (APA), which has consistently maintained that being transgender or attracted to the same sex is not a mental illness. The APA removed homosexuality from its mental illness classification in 1973 and did the same for transgender identities in 2012. Instead, the APA emphasizes that societal discrimination and a lack of acceptance are the primary factors leading to mental health struggles among LGBTQ+ individuals.
Despite this, Meta’s policy now permits content suggesting that sexual orientation should preclude individuals from careers like teaching, law enforcement, or military service—provided such assertions are framed as religious beliefs. Notably, no religious rationale is needed for similar discriminatory arguments based on gender.
### **Reactions from Advocacy Organizations**
Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO of LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD, denounced Meta’s decision, asserting that it provides a “green light for people to target LGBTQ individuals, women, immigrants, and other marginalized communities with violence, vitriol, and dehumanizing narratives.”
“Through these modifications, Meta is perpetuating anti-LGBTQ animosity for profit—at the expense of its users and genuine freedom of expression,” Ellis remarked in a statement. “Fact-checking and hate speech policies defend free speech.”
Mashable has contacted Meta to ask whether the company consulted with advocacy organizations prior to implementing these changes.
### **Community Notes Supplant Fact-Checking**
The policy alteration coincides with Meta’s choice to scrap its fact-checking system, replacing it with a Community Notes feature. Zuckerberg contended that fact-checkers had become “too politically biased” and claimed the old system was being utilized to “suppress opinions and exclude people with alternative ideas.”
Critics, however, highlight that many of these “opinions” are damaging and lack factual support. Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan defended the alterations, stating that the firm had been “restricting legitimate political debate and censoring too much trivial content.”
“It’s wrong that things can be said on TV or in Congress, but not on our platforms,” Kaplan stated in a blog post. However, some argue this reasoning poorly reflects the state of political discourse rather than justifying the proliferation of harmful content online.
### **Meta’s Political Associations and Trump Connection**
The timing of these revisions has raised eyebrows, occurring just weeks before Donald Trump’s second inauguration as U.S. President. Meta has enacted multiple measures to align itself more closely with Trump, including a $1 million contribution to his inaugural fund and appointing Trump ally Dana White, CEO of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), to its board of directors.
Zuckerberg has also publicly indicated that Meta intends to collaborate with the Trump administration to “counter foreign governments targeting American companies to impose censorship.” He further announced that Meta’s trust and safety and content moderation teams would be relocated from California to Texas, asserting this would alleviate concerns about biased enforcement. However, Zuckerberg did not explain why he believes employees in Texas would possess less bias than those in California.
### **Criticism of Meta’s Priorities**
The modifications have incited widespread backlash, with many contending that Meta is prioritizing “free expression” for harmful material over the safety and well-being of its users.