Read in full here: https://www.platformer.news/meta-new-trans-guidelines-hate-speech/
Snippet:
Earlier this week, Meta announced a sweeping set of changes intended to reduce the amount of content it moderates and align its speech policies more closely with the incoming Trump administration. On Thursday, employees and contractors working on trust and safety began to learn what this would mean in practice.
One change Meta made this week was to eliminate restrictions on some attacks on immigrants, women, and transgender people. Specifically, its hateful conduct policy now allows “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.’”
Meta has long supplemented its public community standards with nonpublic guidelines that it shares with employees and contractors charged with enforcing its policies. The guidelines give moderators examples of what is and is not allowed.
Today, Platformer is sharing some of those guidelines.
In an answer to the question “Do insults about mental illness and abnormality violate when targeting people on the basis of gender or sexual orientation?” Meta now answers “no.” It gave the following examples of posts that do not violate its policies:
Non-violating: “Boys are weird.”
Non-violating: “Trans people aren’t real. They’re mentally ill.”
Non-violating: “Gays are not normal.”
Non-violating: “Women are crazy.”
Non-violating: “Trans people are freaks.”
And in a follow-up questions about whether denying that a protected class violates the hateful content policy, Meta also answers no. It gave these as examples of posts that are now allowed on Facebook and Instagram: (snip-MORE. This is from the guy who left Substack a while back. I don’t want to steal from him. It’s free to read.)
Scottie's Playtime 
I saw that news a couple of days ago. People like me are fleeing FB in droves. I would but so many people I want to keep in touch with are only there. So, for now, I keep an account. About the only thing I do with it is read my friends’ and family’s posts, and put up links to new blog posts. Other than that, I exist so young trans people know they are not alone.
It’s utterly disgusting what Meta has done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Likely it comes down to money far more than it comes down to hate. Hate will be involved because of the haters.
I’d sure like to see someone ask these billionaires just how much money will be enough for them, and how getting richer hurting people affects their sleep at night.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is “…and align its speech policies more closely with the incoming Trump administration.” actually called out in their announcement?
That would be admitting that they are willingly signing up to be a propaganda arm for the cult. Surely Meta isn’t bravely admitting this fact. Are they?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am getting to this. I’ve reopened this article along with another to find your quote, then to see who said it. I’ll be back!
LikeLike
I didn’t see that in my quick skim – turns out that was of the “earlier this week” link – but did see that Meta is moving the content moderation office to Texas, or out of “liberal” California. I’d say that moving the bias checking office to Texas is an admission in itself that the intent is to align policies with more MAGAty beliefs.
It’s also, in effect, labelling Texas as the right-wing state that many Texans proudly proclaim it to be. Why else choose that state for the remaining content moderation?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I bet TX workers come more cheaply than CA workers, as well. Sorry, but I’m certain it’s true, if only because of their leadership and the things we’ve learned about how they run the place.
LikeLike
Heh. I meant, too, to throw in that they’ve really flooded the zone, as we knew they would do, and that’s why it’s so hard to sort this stuff out. Good times…
LikeLike
OK. I’ve just read their Transparency Center Policy Details, and I don’t see that statement within.
I know I’ve seen it before you asked. It’s hiding. Oh, heck, no, it’s not. It’s the first graf. That is Casey Newton’s comment.
While I’ve got the one I posted the other day open, I see it’s easier to get why Casey Newton uses the language he does. It’s the one about relinquishing fact-checking. It gives the history of Facebook and Trump, and how threatened Meta likely felt by Trump’s rhetoric, and by their revenue losses That article explains that Facebook never recovered after strong fact-checking and moderation improvements during Pres. Biden’s term, and after being threatened by Trump and his campaign this time, it appears it was decided to just give up ticking Trump off with reality, and hope the money comes back.
But strictly by its Policy Details, Meta does not say they’re trying to align with Trump. But it’s obvious they are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. They are now in the propaganda business. It would have been more honest to have simply admitted it. Probably expect more money out of NOT admitting it, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person