Skip to main content

We applaud Meta’s efforts to try to fix its over-censorship problem but will watch closely to make sure it is a good-faith effort and rolled out fairly and not merely a political maneuver to accommodate the upcoming U.S. administration change. eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-…

EFF Statement on Meta's Announcement of Revisions to Its Content Moderation Processes

In general, EFF supports moves that bring more freedom of expression and transparency to platforms—regardless of their political motivation.
Electronic Frontier Foundation

reshared this

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

tobi (they/them) is writing bugs
tobi (they/them) is writing bugs
• •
How naive are you lot, my goodness. You oughta be sticking the knife to them, not providing them ammo for plausible deniability as they continue being complicit with fascism. Get off the damn fence.

John-Mark Gurney reshared this.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Chad McCullough :debian"
Chad McCullough :debian"
• •
Don't expect a good outcome from any of this. Companies like Meta aren't doing this because they think it's a good or the right thing to do. Zuckerberg and Meta are absolutely horrible and along with Musk (and other billionaires), would crush human life if it meant making more money. The default should be to NOT trust these terrible people.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Magess
Magess
• •
is there anything in the history of Facebook or Zuckerberg to support this rosy optimism?
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

FoolishOwl
FoolishOwl
• •
This is giving cover to fascists. It's not a good faith effort and that's obvious to everyone.
Unknown parent

Daniel Marks
Daniel Marks
• •
@rootwyrm Meta doesn't censor, they just get rid of anything that doesn't suit them. That's much better!
@RootWyrm 🇺🇦
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Emmy "Pristine Blade" Durden
Emmy "Pristine Blade" Durden
• •
"Update: After this blog post was written, we learned Meta revised its public "Hateful Conduct" policy in ways EFF finds concerning. We are analyzing these changes, which this blog post does not address."
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
• •
Update: After this blog post was written, we learned Meta revised its public "Hateful Conduct" policy in ways EFF finds concerning. We are analyzing these changes, which this blog post does not address.

freiheit🤖 reshared this.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Lesley Carhart
Lesley Carhart
• •
yeaaaa yall this is not aging well, hate speech inciting harm against vulnerable groups is an exception.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Ash Greytree
Ash Greytree
• •
when have y'all ever found bigotry concerning? When people united to put public pressure on to drop protection from hateful sites like KiwiFarms, and they succeeded, you wrung your hands about it, and later that year created a "Protect The Stack" site. And then the year after that, an ISP dropped them for violating their Acceptable Use Policy and Corynne McSherry (who oh-so-bravely wrote anonymously) wrote about how it was concerning and we need to keep Protecting Bigots Free Speech- I mean "The Stack". eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps…

ISPs Should Not Police Online Speech—No Matter How Awful It Is.

Entrusting our speech to multiple different corporate actors is always risky. Yet given how most of the internet is currently structured, our online expression largely depends on a set of private companies ranging from our direct Internet service pro…
Electronic Frontier Foundation
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Nora Reed
Nora Reed
• •
maybe next time ask literally any internet savvy marginalized person before you write in your fucking blog
in reply to Nora Reed

Orca 🌻 | 🎀 | 🪁 | 🏴🏳️‍⚧️
Orca 🌻 | 🎀 | 🪁 | 🏴🏳️‍⚧️
• •
I saw THAT blog posted by eff, about the same time I saw someone working in the eff shitting on Facebook, on my timeline.
They can just literally ask some of their employees. They choose not to. 😅
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Fully operational gator system
Fully operational gator system
• •

Good, I figured y'all just hadn't gotten the full picture.

To a lot of people, it seemed there for a moment y'all were going mask-off in support of social manipulation and corporate greed. A scary direction for the EFF.

Saying that to your Fedi audience... 😰

In today's day and age, it's not just what is censored but what is also promoted. Hate speech and factual misinformation were already rampant of the Meta platforms, as they are on the X platform. Social media companies are companies, they will follow what they think will bring them profit and follow what they believe the trend is. Right now, they believe far-right politicians represent their best interests and far-right ideology is trending. Therefore, it makes sense to calibrate their policies and algorithms to support those ideas.

If these platforms were neutral, removing this censorship would already be a pretty bad idea. These platforms definitely aren't neutral, and they already had tremendous issues with content related to hate speech before this decision.

Even 4chan has moderation, it shouldn't be more moderated than the one service our collective grandparents were actually motivated to figure out how to use.

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
• •
By the time we shared this statement, the conversation had understandably shifted toward Meta's dangerous new content policy. It was a mistake to project good faith onto the company, which quickly showed it was not deserving of it. For a full analysis, see eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/meta…

Meta’s New Content Policy Will Harm Vulnerable Users. If It Really Valued Free Speech, It Would Make These Changes

Earlier this week, when Meta announced changes to their content moderation processes, we were hopeful that some of those changes—which we will address in more detail in this post—would enable greater freedom of expression on the company’s platforms, …
Electronic Frontier Foundation
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Ruth [☕️ 👩🏻‍💻📚✍🏻🧵🪡🍵]
Ruth [☕️ 👩🏻‍💻📚✍🏻🧵🪡🍵]
• •

it was a mistake to project good faith onto the company in this the year 2025?

8 years after the Rohingya genocide? You still gave them the benefit of the doubt?

Is there any kind of internal self-evaluation happening at the organization or even in your own heads asking yourselves why you made such a poor choice? In, and I cannot stress this enough…. 2025?

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Cassandrich
Cassandrich
• •

If it was a mistake, take down the post, issue a retraction, and issue an equally enthusiastic condemnation of Facebook's role in welcoming fascism and undermining the core values EFF (purportedly) stands for.

Also, tell us what you're going to do to ensure this doesn't happen again. In terms of limiting the influence of (e.g. firing) whoever thought that post was a good idea. I doubt the senior names on the byline actually had time to write it. Whoever did is a plant compromising the EFF.

in reply to Cassandrich

Octavia con Amore
Octavia con Amore
• •
EFF, Meta

Sensitive content

@Cassandrich
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Shrig 🐌
Shrig 🐌
• •
you're flogging a dead horse by pointing out "oh yeah Meta is still bad actually oops" and suggesting what they must/should/could do as if they will ever in our lifetimes do it beyond protecting their bottom line and reputation in the press with performative and empty gestures.
Stop wasting your energy with this, apologise fully and meaningfully for your repeated naivety and trust for Meta and finally encourage its abandonment and suffocation while elevating its community owned alternatives
in reply to Shrig 🐌

Shrig 🐌
Shrig 🐌
• •
this additional blog post only reads like fluff to try and stop the flow of your hemorrhaging donors. No shit Meta is bad 🙄
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

David Plisken 🏳️‍⚧️ BLM! 🇵🇸
David Plisken 🏳️‍⚧️ BLM! 🇵🇸
• •
great, now you know how fascistic this is.
Wire Article about Facebooks content moderation shift. Title and subhead: Meta Now Lets Users Say Gay and Trans People Have 'Mental Illness' Meta rolled out a number of changes to its “Hateful Conduct” policy Tuesday as part of a sweeping overhaul of its approach toward content moderation.
in reply to David Plisken 🏳️‍⚧️ BLM! 🇵🇸

Malin
Malin
• •
@najakwa are you looking for a copy editor? You can remove verbose statements with bigoted overtones by using direct, simple, statements, which don't hide the message behind the tone:
@eff statement above: > "We applaud Meta’s efforts to try to ... ...placed over the statement by Meta about what they are trying to do: > "[allow people to ] say gay and trans people have 'mental illness'"
@David Plisken 🏳️‍⚧️ BLM! 🇵🇸
in reply to Malin

David Plisken 🏳️‍⚧️ BLM! 🇵🇸
David Plisken 🏳️‍⚧️ BLM! 🇵🇸
• •
@malin excellent work. For those at EFF who didn't read the change from Meta, this position is not a lie. transparency.meta.com/policies…

Hateful Conduct | Transparency Center

Meta regularly publishes reports to give our community visibility into community standards enforcement, government requests and internet disruptions
transparency.meta.com
@Malin
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Noxy 🐾
Noxy 🐾
• •

What basis do you have for assuming good-faith from Facebook?

I usually trust the EFF but this statement concerns me.

in reply to Noxy 🐾

Hadley T. Canine (fox)
Hadley T. Canine (fox)
• •

@noxypaws This statement should probably cause you to reevaluate your trust for the EFF. I don't think anybody, ever, has ever accused facebook of "over-moderation", except outright fascists.

What the absolute fuck, EFF?

@Noxy 🐾
in reply to Hadley T. Canine (fox)

Emmy "Pristine Blade" Durden
Emmy "Pristine Blade" Durden
• •
@hadley @noxypaws
Nipples (and cakes that look vaguely like breasts), same sex kisses, blasphemous content in Pakistan, climate change, vaccine information, criticism of the Israel government, and a few others are on the list linked below.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censor…

Facebook's removal or omission of information

Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)
@Noxy 🐾 @Hadley T. Canine (fox)
in reply to Hadley T. Canine (fox)

olea
olea
• •
@hadley @noxypaws People accuse Facebook of being puritanical and such all the time. It's more the double standard, you see "free speech sites" which are then scared of nipples.
@Noxy 🐾 @Hadley T. Canine (fox)
in reply to olea

Lucy B
Lucy B
• •
@olea @hadley @noxypaws
Perhaps it’s a triple standard, as nipples are fine, as long as Meta can sell them in ads. And you’re absolutely right, the censorship is definitely still there.
404media.co/facebook-is-censor…

Facebook Is Censoring 404 Media Stories About Facebook's Censorship

Instagram, Facebook, and Threads are removing 404 Media stories for “nudity” as the company is paid to put ads with explicit pornography in front of its users.
Emanuel Maiberg (404 Media)
@Noxy 🐾 @Hadley T. Canine (fox) @olea
in reply to Lucy B

Emmy "Pristine Blade" Durden
Emmy "Pristine Blade" Durden
• •

@lucybeahere @olea @hadley @noxypaws nipples? It looks like the ads they allow are close up images of hardcore porn.

A marzipan cake with a gumdrop that looks a bit like a breast gets censored because it's user posted, but ads can show penetration? Meta basically just promised to take it's already trash moderation and set it on fire.

@Noxy 🐾 @Lucy B @Hadley T. Canine (fox) @olea
⇧