Now it turns out that he not only did his big set of moderation changes to please Trump, but did so only after he was told by the incoming administration to act. Even worse, he reportedly made sure to share his plans with top Trump aides to get their approval first.
That’s a key takeaway from a new New York Times piece that is ostensibly a profile of the relentlessly awful Stephen Miller. However, it also has a few revealing details about the whole Zuckerberg saga buried within. First, Miller reportedly demanded that Zuckerberg make changes at Facebook “on Trump’s terms.”
Mr. Miller told Mr. Zuckerberg that he had an opportunity to help reform America, but it would be on President-elect Donald J. Trump’s terms. He made clear that Mr. Trump would crack down on immigration and go to war against the diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I., culture that had been embraced by Meta and much of corporate America in recent years.
Mr. Zuckerberg was amenable. He signaled to Mr. Miller and his colleagues, including other senior Trump advisers, that he would do nothing to obstruct the Trump agenda, according to three people with knowledge of the meeting, who asked for anonymity to discuss a private conversation. Mr. Zuckerberg said he would instead focus solely on building tech products.
Even if you argue that this was more about DEI programs at Meta rather than about content moderation, it’s still the incoming administration reportedly making actual demands of Zuckerberg, and Zuckerberg not just saying “fine” but actually previewing the details to Miller to make sure they got Trump’s blessing.
Earlier this month, Mr. Zuckerberg’s political lieutenants previewed the changes to Mr. Miller in a private briefing. And on Jan. 10, Mr. Zuckerberg made them official….
This is especially galling given that it was just days ago when Zuckerberg was whining about how unfair it was that Biden officials were demanding stuff from him (even though he had no trouble saying no to them) and it was big news! The headlines made a huge deal of how unfair Biden was to Zuckerberg. Here’s just a sampling.
Also conveniently omitted was the fact that the Supreme Court found no evidence of the Biden administration going over the line in its conversations with Meta. Indeed, a Supreme Court Justice noted that conversations like those that the Biden admin had with Meta happened “thousands of times a day,” and weren’t problematic because there was no inherent threat or direct coordination.
Yet, here, we have reports of both threats and now evidence of direct coordination, including Zuckerberg asking for and getting direct approval from a top Trump official before rolling out the policy.
And where is this bombshell revelation? It’s buried in a random profile piece puffing up Stephen Miller.
It’s almost as if everyone now takes it for granted that any made-up story about Biden will be treated as fact, and everyone just takes it as expected when Trump actually does the thing that Biden gets falsely accused of.
With this new story, don’t hold your breath waiting for the same outlets to give this anywhere near the same level of coverage and outrage they directed at the Biden administration.
It’s almost as if there’s a massive double standard here: everything is okay if Trump does it, but we can blame the Biden admin for things we only pretend they did.
I’m used to hypocrisy in the political world, but this is beyond ridiculous. It’s now being made clear that the Trump admin is actually doing the exact thing that people were (falsely, misleadingly) blaming Biden for.
And it’s just a random aside in a story, and no one seems to be calling it out. Other than us here at Techdirt.
The fact is these kids are exposed to sex and gender as soon as they learn there is a difference between boy and girl. Hey what do you tell a boy in kindergarten when they need to go to the bathroom. That’s right in all their younger grades they are instructed to use the bathroom of their gender, boy go to the boys bathroom, girls go to the girls bathroom. That teaches them gender regardless of these cis straight religious people want to admit it or not. Plus their goal seems to deny their kids the idea that some people are different, have different feelings when those very kids are in their class and maybe their friends? They seek to deny these kids friendships with people who are different from them. It reminds me of the segregation issues in the southern state. White supremacist did not want their pretty white kids in the same class as the black kids they felt were … something. It is like they thought the black was able to spread and be caught. No matter if these religious people like it or not the world has changed, society has changed and it is not the time of their bible nor the fabled 1950s they dream existed. Trying to deny the existance of the LGBTQ+ is like trying to deny black people exist. Hugs.
Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.
January 17, 2025 at 6:54 p.m.
A large group of parents protested in Rockville, Maryland, on June 27, 2023, in an effort to allow their children to opt out of books that feature LGBTQ+ characters in Montgomery County schools. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a case about whether public schools must give parents ofelementary schoolchildren a chance to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they saygoes against their religious convictions.
Parents, who are Muslim,Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox, filed suit in 2023, saying the policy violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.
The case puts the high court at the center of a contentious national debate over how to teach and treat gender and sexuality in schools, which has spurred fights over books, bathroom use and on which teams transgender athletes should be allowed to play.
Eric Baxter, an attorney for the families, said in a statement that the school system’s decision to disallow opt-outs was “cramming down controversial gender ideology” to 3-year-old pupils. Becket, a public interest institute that pushes for religious liberty, is representing the families, and has been involved in other cases on LGBTQ+ issues.
“The Court must make clear: Parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality,” Baxter said.
Montgomery County schools declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. Butthe districtwrote in filings to the high court thatan adverse ruling could upend long-standing legal precedent that guides how schools teach.
“Petitioners seek to unsettle a decades-old consensus that parents who choose to send their children to public school are not deprived of their right to freely exercise their religion simply because their children are exposed to curricular materials the parents find offensive,” attorneys for the schools wrote.
During the 2022-2023 school year, Montgomery County schools introduced a reading list of books that included LGBTQ+ characters as part of an effort to be more inclusive to its diverse student population. The lists were intended for students from prekindergarten to 12th grade and were created with parental feedback.
The school system required teachers to read at least one storybook a year from a group of titles that included “Pride Puppy,” which is about a gay pride parade; “Intersection Allies,” which is about a group of children discussing their differences; and “Love, Violet,” which is about a girl who has feelings for a female classmate.
“The storybooks are not used in any lessons related to gender and sexuality,” the school district wrote in itsfiling. “Nor is any student asked or expected to change his or her views about his or her own, or any other student’s, sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, the books are made available for individual reading, classroom read-alouds, and other educational activities designed to foster and enhance literacy skills.”
The parents wrote in court documents that the Montgomeryschool board also issued guidance that instructed teachers to emphasize that “not everyone is a boy or girl” and that some “people identify with both, sometimes one more than the other and sometimes neither.”
As teachers started using the books in the classroom, some families wanted to opt their children out of the discussions due to concerns that the lessons and subsequent discussions would conflict with their religious views. The books that targeted elementary-aged students were particularly controversial.
Originally, some principals let families pull their children out of the classroom when the books were read. But in March 2023, the school system’s central office announced that opt-outs would not be permitted.
More than 1,100 parents signed a petition asking the district to restore the opt-out right and hundreds protested the decision. Maryland is one of 47 states and the District of Columbia that have opt-out or opt-in provisions for sex education in schools, according to the parents’ filing.
In May 2023, a group of parents filed a lawsuit against the school system, alleging that the district violated their First Amendment rights and that the decision went against a district policy that allows for religious accommodations. The parents are not asking the school system to drop the curriculum.
Other parents did not support opting out of the curriculum.
After the lawsuit was filed, the school system quietly stopped teaching two of the books referenced in the lawsuit because of concerns that it would “require teachers to explicitly teach vocabulary terms outside of the context of the lesson,” according to a district database.
The parentswho sued the district asked a federal judge in Maryland for a preliminary injunction to restore the opt-out provision, but the judge denied the request, ruling the parents were unlikely to succeed because they could not show “that the no-opt-out policy burdens their religious exercise.”
That ruling was upheld by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, before the parents petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Oral arguments in the case will be scheduled later.
Mark Eckstein, a Montgomery County schools parent and LGBTQ+ advocate, said he wasn’t surprised the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, given that discussions around gender and sexuality have roiled school communities across the country.
“I strongly believe that the district court ruled correctly, and I’m hoping there will be a vigorous defense of the wisdom of that decision and MCPS’s policy,” he said.
Montgomery is one of a number of school districts where controversy has flared over books dealing with sexuality and gender. In 2023,a Georgia teacher was fired after she read a book about gender conformity to her fifth-grade class. She sued.
A group of parents in Dearborn, Michigan, sued the school district in 2022, seeking to remove books from school libraries they felt had inappropriate sexual content. Hundreds of mostly Muslim parents also protested at a school board meeting.
The effort was part of a broader push to pull somebooks from schools and libraries. The American Library Association found more than 4,200 book titles were targeted for removal from schools in libraries in 2023, greatly outpacing the 2,500 targeted the year before. Almost 50 percent of the titles dealt with gay and minority themes.
The Supreme Court has moved in recent terms to expand religion in education and the rights of the religious.
In 2o22, a divided court ruled that Washington state discriminated against a football coach who prayed at midfield after a high school football game. The same year, the high court ruled Maine could not exclude religious schools from a voucher program that provides public assistance for education.
Last year, the high court ruled that the constitution’s free speech provisions shield some businesses from being required to provide services to same-sex couples, after a web designer argued she should not have to do such work because of her religious beliefs.
Justin Jouvenal covers the Supreme Court. He previously covered policing and the courts locally and nationally. He joined The Post in 2009. follow on X@jjouvenal
The case was filed by the Catholic anti-LGBTQ hate group, the Becket Fund, whose senior counsel celebrates below.
The Becket Fund last appeared here in July 2024 when they sued to overturn Michigan’s ban on ex-gay torture.
In 2014, the Becket Fund joined with NOM, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, and Alliance Defending Freedom to form an anti-LGBTQ “supergroup” to battle same-sex marriage.
In 2013, the Becket Fund joined with major Catholic groups in sponsoring the so-called Manhattan Declaration, signers of which avow that they will “civilly disobey” laws that protect LGBTQ people from discrimination.
The Becket Fund was founded in 1994 by a former Reagan administration Justice Department lawyer who worked under future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
The group is named for Saint Thomas Becket, who was Archbishop of Canterbury under King Henry II until he was murdered by followers of the King in the year 1170.
Outside of LGBTQ issues, the Becket Fund is best known for winning cases on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby.
These people are driven and a serious threat to democracy. They demand a theocracy of their god and a government enforcing their church doctrines. No non-Christians may be tolerated. Look at what they say, we don’t want government in our churches but we should be in government, and there is no separation of church and state. Plus how would these people react if a Muslim group did this, a Hindu church, or even a Jewish temple? They would lose their minds. Somewhere in the past the atheist stopped fighting these people and let them use their endless supply of church members contributions to push their goals ever closer to taking over. We must again fight back, get the people to understand the risk and what is true in history. These people will rewrite every thing to prove their lies. Hugs.
“There is no separation between church and state,” Republican Party of Texas Chair Abraham George said at a small rally with clergy and GOP lawmakers. “We don’t want the government in our churches, but we should be in the government.”
Polling from the Public Religion Research Institute found that more than half of Republicans adhere to or sympathize with pillars of Christian nationalism, including that the U.S. should be a strictly Christian nation. Of those respondents, roughly half supported having an authoritarian leader who maintains Christian dominance in society. Experts have also found strong correlations between Christian nationalist beliefs and opposition to immigration, racial justice and religious diversity.
One of his movement’s ultimate goals, he said Tuesday, is to draw a lawsuit that they can eventually take to the U.S. Supreme Court, which they believe will ultimately overturn the prohibition and unleash a new wave of conservative, Christian activism.
One Christian nationalism expert said Tuesday’s events showed how normalized the ideology has become among broad swaths of the Republican Party. “I’ve argued for years that, in the Trump era, charismatic evangelicals have displaced the old guard of the (Religious Right) and brought in a new, more aggressive evangelical politics,” Matthew Taylor, a senior scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian, & Jewish Studies, wrote on social media. “That was on vivid display in (Texas) today.”
Taylor has spent much of his career focused on the New Apostolic Reformation, a movement of “charismatic” Christians who often weave prophecy, “spiritual warfare” and demonology into their calls for Christians to take control over all spheres of society.
Abraham George’s comments are the latest sign of the state GOP’s embrace of fundamentalist ideologies that seek to center public life around their faith.
Landon Schott, pastor of Mercy Culture, leads a worship service in the state Capitol extension auditorium on the first day of the 2025 state legislative session in Austin on Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2025. Credit: Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune
Two hours after Rep. Dustin Burrows of Lubbock was elected Texas House speaker on Tuesday, Christian worshippers gathered in a Capitol meeting room to prepare for “spiritual war” and protect lawmakers from demonic forces.
“Pray for the fear of the Lord to come into this place,” Landon Schott intoned from the stage as a small band played acoustic hymns and 100 or so faithful laid their hands on walls, hoping to bless the room and ward off evil spirits. “Let the fear of the Lord return to Austin. In Jesus’ name.”
Schott is the pastor of Mercy Culture Church in Fort Worth, and was among the Christian leaders who spent Tuesday rallying fellow believers ahead of a legislative session that they hope will further codify their conservative religious views into law. He was joined in those efforts by a throng of pastors and Republican leaders, who throughout the day claimed that church-state separation isn’t real, called progressive Christians heretics, or vowed to weed out “cowardly” clergy who refuse to politick from the pulpit.
“There is no separation between church and state,” Republican Party of Texas Chair Abraham George said at a small rally with clergy and GOP lawmakers. “We don’t want the government in our churches, but we should be in the government.”
George’s comments — delivered some-50 yards from another rally that focused on interfaith unity — are the latest sign of the Texas GOP’s embrace of fundamentalist ideologies that seek to center public life around their faith by claiming church-state separation is a myth or that America’s founding was God-ordained, and its laws should thus favor conservative Christianity.
Polling from the Public Religion Research Institute found that more than half of Republicans adhere to or sympathize with pillars of Christian nationalism, including that the U.S. should be a strictly Christian nation. Of those respondents, roughly half supported having an authoritarian leader who maintains Christian dominance in society. Experts have also found strong correlations between Christian nationalist beliefs and opposition to immigration, racial justice and religious diversity.
Worshippers link hands in prayer while attending a worship service led by a variety of religious groups from across Texas, including My God Votes, in the Capitol extension auditorium. Credit: Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune
The party’s embrace of those separate-but-overlapping ideologies has come as it has increasingly aligned with far-right megadonors Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, two West Texas oil billionaires who have sought to cleanse the Texas GOP of moderate voices and push their hardline religious views. At the same time, some Republican lawmakers have adopted an increasingly existential view of politics that paints opponents — unwitting or not — as part of a concerted effort to destroy Christianity, including by normalizing LGBTQ+ acceptance or undermining “traditional” family structures.
Such claims have been used as the pretext for a litany of bills and reforms that would further infuse Christianity into public life. During the 2023 legislative session, lawmakers passed a law allowing unlicensed chaplains to supplant counselors in public schools; sought to weaken Texas’ constitutional ban on providing taxpayer money to religious institutions, a core plank of the school voucher movement; and almost passed a bill that would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school classrooms.
Lawmakers are expected to continue that trend during this year’s legislative session (the Ten Commandments bill already has been refiled). And pastors, emboldened by President Donald Trump’s reelection and the ultraconservative U.S. Supreme Court, said Tuesday that they believe they have their best shot yet to topple the church-state wall and the Johnson Amendment, a federal rule that prohibits churches from engaging in overt political activity.
Rick Scarborough has spent decades working to do exactly that. A former Southern Baptist pastor in Pearland, he has become a leader in a movement that seeks to mobilize pastors and undermine the Johnson Amendment, which he says is toothless but has been used by “cowardly” pastors who don’t want to engage in politics. The result, he said, has been an ineffectual Texas Legislature that has often cowered to the LGBTQ+ community and their heretical, progressive Christian allies. (Texas lawmakers have passed dozens of anti-LGBTQ+ bills in recent years, overriding opposition from a large majority of Democrats).
One of his movement’s ultimate goals, he said Tuesday, is to draw a lawsuit that they can eventually take to the U.S. Supreme Court, which they believe will ultimately overturn the prohibition and unleash a new wave of conservative, Christian activism.
“The Johnson Amendment is nothing but a fig leaf to cover the fear that pastors already have,” he said in an interview after praying over GOP lawmakers on the Capitol lawn. “Most pastors are so fearful of their reputation that they won’t stand, and they don’t know how much God will defend them if they get out there and stand up and speak fearlessly.”
Few congregations have taken up Scarborough’s mantle like Mercy Culture Church, the Fort Worth congregation that Schott pastors. In recent years, Mercy Culture has become an epicenter of Texas’ fundamentalist Christian movement, helping push the state and local GOP further right, demonizing their detractors — Schott has called critics of the church “warlocks” and “witches,” and claimed Christians can’t vote for Democrats — and rallying voters behind church leaders as they campaign for public office. Among the church’s pastors is Rep. Nate Schatzline, who was elected to the Texas House in 2022 and has since continued to frame his political life as part of broader, spiritual struggle.
“This isn’t a physical battle,” Schatzline said in a Tuesday interview. “It’s not a political battle we’re in. We really believe this is a spiritual battle.”
Hours later, Schatzline kicked off the worship session at the Capitol with a bold promise.
“We’re going to give this space back to the Holy Spirit,” he said. “We give You this room. … The 89th Legislative session is Yours, Lord. The members of this body are Yours, Lord. This building belongs to You, Jesus.”
One Christian nationalism expert said Tuesday’s events showed how normalized the ideology has become among broad swaths of the Republican Party. “I’ve argued for years that, in the Trump era, charismatic evangelicals have displaced the old guard of the (Religious Right) and brought in a new, more aggressive evangelical politics,” Matthew Taylor, a senior scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian, & Jewish Studies, wrote on social media. “That was on vivid display in (Texas) today.”
Taylor has spent much of his career focused on the New Apostolic Reformation, a movement of “charismatic” Christians who often weave prophecy, “spiritual warfare” and demonology into their calls for Christians to take control over all spheres of society.
Members of that movement played central roles in the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection, and were well-represented at the Texas Capitol on Tuesday: Schatzline and Mercy Culture have deep ties to the New Apostolic Reformation, as does Brandon Burden, a Frisco pastor who led a caravan of buses and activists to pressure lawmakers ahead of the House speaker vote. In January 2021, he told his congregants to keep weapons loaded for what he prophesied would be a national blackout orchestrated to keep Trump out of office.
Burden repeatedly appeared alongside Republican officials on Tuesday. Minutes after George, the Texas GOP chair, claimed that church-state separation doesn’t exist, Burden led a group of pastors and activists as they prayed over a small group of GOP lawmakers. “We take charge and authority of the 89th legislative session,” he prayed. “We, the people of God, called by the name of Jesus and covered in the blood of the lamb, have been given spiritual jurisdiction over the affairs of men.”
At the Texas Capitol, Christian worshippers are blessing the walls of a hearing room to protect lawmakers from spiritual forces and the “Jezebel” spirit.
“Pray for the fear of the Lord to come into this place,” says MercyCulture pastor Landon Schott. pic.twitter.com/1NAIOYkRtC
“But I don’t know. I can make all kinds of horrible theories up in my head, conspiracy theories and everything else, but it just seemed a little convenient that there was no water and that the wind conditions were right and that there are people ready and willing and able to start fires.
“And are they commissioned to do so or just acting on their own volition?” – Mel “Horse Paste Cures Cancer” Gibson, last night on Laura Ingraham’s show.
Lucky the above guy who destroyed expensive public property did not get caught buying weed or being a doctor saving a woman’s life by giving them a needed abortion. Hugs
New: Meta has deleted trans and nonbinary Messenger themes, as well as the blog posts announcing them. Happens the same week that it has changed its rules to allow users to say LGBTQ+ people are "mentally ill"www.404media.co/meta-deletes…
Another large company has fallen to right wing pressure and the fear of being on tRump’s bad side. This right wing media pressure campaign we had better find a way to stop and combat. Hugs.
A commitment to helping Black people live “free from fear,” and all occurrences of the term “transgender” disappeared from a page listing the online retailer’s policies late last month.
An Amazon logo hangs on a wall at Amazon’s HQ2 in Crystal City, Virginia in 2023. (Eric Lee for the Washington Post)
As Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, Amazon has cut commitments to protecting the rights of Black and LGBTQ+ people from a public listing of its corporate policies.
Statements that said Amazonsupported the rights of transgender people and would protect the safety of Black employees and customers disappeared from a webpage stating the company’s positions late in December, archived versions show.
Sections titled “Equity for Black people” and “LGBTQ+ rights” were removed from the page, along with all mentions of the term transgender.The “Diversity, equity, and inclusion” section wasupdated to say that “inequitable treatment of anyone — including Black people, LGBTQ+ people, Asians, women, and others — is unacceptable.”
The changes come as other corporations have also adjusted their policies in ways apparently calculated to fit the change of political weather in Washington.
McDonald’s this month scaled back its diversity goals and Meta confirmed Friday that it would dismantle its employee diversity and equity, or DEI, programs. A growing number of Fortune 500 companies have abandoned or reduced DEI initiatives in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn affirmative action in college admissions in 2023.
Some Amazonemployees who noticed the changes to its policy page this weekwere dismayedby the apparent changes in the company’s positions, screenshots of internalconversations seen by The Washington Post showed. The Information earlier reported the changes.
Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel said in an email statement, “We update this page from time to time to ensure that it reflects updates we’ve made to various programs and positions.” The company also pointed toan internal memo from December in which vice president Candi Castleberry said it was rolling back some DEI initiatives. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.
Before late December, Amazon’s webpage listing its policy positions said the company stood “in solidarity” with Black employees and customers, and supported “legislation to combat misconduct and racial bias in policing, efforts to protect and expand voting rights, and initiatives that provide better health and educational outcomes for Black people.”
Amazon also previously saidon that page it was “working at the U.S. federal and state level on legislation” on protections for transgender people. It saidthat the company provided “gender transition benefits based on the Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).” The section with those claimshas also been deleted.
For months, Meta has been restricting content with LGBTQ-related hashtags from search and discovery under its “sensitive content” policy aimed at restricting “sexually suggestive content.”
Posts with LGBTQ+ hashtags including #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans, #queer, #nonbinary, #pansexial, #transwomen, #Tgirl, #Tboy, #Tgirlsarebeautiful, #bisexualpride, #lesbianpride, and dozens of others were hidden for any users who had their sensitive content filter turned on. Teenagers have the sensitive content filter turned on by default.
When teen users attempted to search LGBTQ terms they were shown a blank page and a prompt from Meta to review the platform’s “sensitive content” restrictions, which discuss why the app hides “sexually explicit” content.
Meta reversed the restrictions on LGBTQ search terms after User Mag reached out for comment, saying that it was in error. “These search terms and hashtags were mistakenly restricted,” a Meta spokesperson said. “It’s important to us that all communities feel safe and welcome on Meta apps, and we do not consider LGBTQ+ terms to be sensitive under our policies.”
User Mag is a 100% reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, become a free or paid subscriber.
Subscribe
Under mounting pressure from lawmakers and amidst a moral panic about young people’s social media use, last year, Meta introduced a new set of “sensitive content” restrictions across Instagram, Facebook, and Threads, aimed at teenagers. “We will start to hide more types of content for teens on Instagram and Facebook,” the company said at the time.
In September, Meta doubled down, forcing users under the age of 18 to use “Instagram Teen Accounts,” a setting which could only be reversed by a parent or guardian. The goal of this change, in Meta’s words, was to “limit … the content [teenagers] see, and help ensure their time is well spent.”
These changes quickly resulted in LGBTQ+ content getting restricted across Meta apps. Meanwhile, heterosexual content, tradwife content, and content featuring straight cisgender couples (even those engaged in romantic activities) has flourished.
“Meta categorizing LGBTQ hashtags as ‘sensitive content’ is an alarming example of censorship that should concern everyone,” said Leanna Garfield, social media safety program manager at GLAAD.
Some LGBTQ teenagers and content creators attempted to sound the alarm about the issue, but their posts failed to get traction. For years, LGBTQ creators on Instagram have suffered shadow bans and had their content labeled as “non-recommendable.” The restrictions on searches, however, are more recent, coming into effect in the past few months. Meta said it was investigating to find out when the error began.
“A responsible and inclusive company would not build an algorithm that classifies some LGBTQ hashtags as ‘sensitive content,’ hiding helpful and age-appropriate content from young people by default,” a spokesperson for GLAAD said. “Regardless of if this was an unintended error, Meta should… test significant product updates before launch.”
Subscribe
Several LGBQT teenagers I spoke to said that they weren’t even aware of the sensitive content restrictions, but said that they struggled to find other LGBTQ young people to connect with through Instagram.
“For many LGBTQ people, especially youth, platforms like Instagram are crucial for self-discovery, community building, and accessing supportive information,” Garfield said. “By limiting access to LGBTQ content, Instagram may be inadvertently contributing to the isolation and marginalization of LGBTQ users.”
The downranking and hiding of LGBTQ+ content comes as LGBTQ rights across the country are under attack.
On December 4th, the Supreme Court heard a major case on banning healthcare for trans youth. Trump has pledged to roll back protections for LGBTQ students, and right wing groups like the Heritage Foundation are working together with Democrats to dismantle civil liberties and restrict young people from accessing social media under dangerous proposed legislation such as the very poorly named Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).
KOSA co-sponsor Rep. Marsha Blackburn claimed that it’s essential to restrict teens access to social media to “protect minor children from the transgender [sic] in this culture and that influence.”
One of the most prominent voices pushing legislation like KOSA and boosting policies like Meta’s sensitive content restrictions is NYU Stern School of Business professor Jonathan Haidt, whose dubious book, The Anxious Generation falsely ties social media use to teen mental health issues in order to push a moral panic about kids and technology use. This moral panic is then used to justify harmful laws that restrict speech and civil liberties online, and do immense harm to marginalized LGBTQ youth.
“Meta categorizing LGBTQ hashtags as ‘sensitive content’ is an alarming example of censorship that should concern everyone”
Mark Zuckerberg recently dined at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida and is seeking an “active role” in Trump tech policy as the two are “now warming to each other,” according to The Guardian.
The increased censorship of LGBTQ content online is already having devastating effects on young people. For queer teens who rely on social media to connect with their peers and find support, these policies are cutting off vital access to community and representation.
“Meta should not only stop suppressing LGBTQ content in this way, it should also clarify how and why [this error occurred],” said Garfield.
User Mag is a 100% reader-supported publication. To support my work, become a free or paid subscriber. I could not do this work without your support.
When I was in the service in the 1980s it was illegal for gays to serve. But I was mostly openly gay. I had to be careful as did the many “straight” guys who from training on wanted to have sex with me, and worked / asked / begged for us to take an afternoon drive together somewhere remote on the base to those that begged me to take a four day pass with them to travel a little ways away and get a hotel somewhere. The reason if someone asked was we were seeing such … or visiting a theme park … what ever was plausible even though no questions were ever asked. I never thought about that then … no one ever questioned anything.
Not that you need to know this but I was having same sex relations with fellow service members several times a week and at least every month having a four day pass to have sex. Once it took me by surprise when on the way back to the base I got my first blowjob while driving. When I asked gratefully why, the guy told me he wanted me to remember him in case he asked to go on another pass. He did afterward … repeatedly.
Hey people we were all young really fit horny guys. Were they gay? Were they just straight who understood it would be a way to have enjoyable sex? The only thing I will say is that for every act I performed for them both passive and aggressive, they also performed eagerly for me. You make your own judgments.
Again this was the 1980s. I knew so many Marines who went into the Marines to have the gay worked out of them by becoming a real man. Others were like me, gay with nowhere to go, some were gay like my long term boyfriend who were gay so went where hunky young guys were. Remember what I have said about my time in. I was very skilled at my job as a technician. But as far as being in the Army … well not so much. But the day I was due to leave my warrant officer, my upper staff, two of who had walked in on me fucking my boyfriend on my bed with his legs up in the air and everything in view … left the room, made a big show of about to enter with lots of rattling keys to come in to our room for an unannounced room inspection finding us flushed with our pants hastily pulled on, look around and then the senior guy Sgt Emory winked as he told us … everything looks great guys … go back to what you were doing before we came in. My boyfriend about wilted and died, but I gave a hardy OK will do. And we did. I managed to get the satellite site back up online with modulation while in civilian clothing, which the others had been frantically trying to do before I jumped in. As I said, not to brag I had a talent for more than sex. They begged me to reenlist. I asked them if they could protect me from the new Company Commander who was from infantry and hard right wing who had told me if I did not leave when my contract was ended would see me court marshaled and given an unfit for service discharge. Like the people of this article. They admitted they couldn’t … so I left and became a civilian with the military losing my skills.
That is what tRump and the bigot LGBTQ+ haters want to return to. The military already is way behind on recruitment due to increasingly better economic times, so this will make recruitment worse. Making trans care for minor dependents unavailable and removing travel pay / time for abortion services will also cut down on retention. Removing the 15,000 to 20,000 trans people will also cut down on military people. Removing women from combat? What is the goal, to gut all the US military? To reinstate the draft? Anyway here is the article. Please feel free to ask me anything about this post / my time in the military you feel you need answers to. Hugs
The Pentagon has reached a historic legal settlement with more than 35,000 gay and lesbian military veterans who were dismissed because of their sexual orientation, and in many cases denied an honorable discharge and the array of services they had earned, CBS News has learned.
Under the terms of the agreement, veterans whose discharge papers reference their sexual orientation as a reason for their separation from the military can now avoid a cumbersome legal process and be re-issued paperwork that eliminates any reference to their sexuality. If they were denied an honorable discharge, they will also be eligible for an immediate upgrade review, the agreement says.
“When I was discharged because of my sexual orientation, I felt that my country was telling me that my service was not valuable – that I was ‘less than’ because of who I loved,” said Sherrill Farrell, a U.S. Navy veteran who was a plaintiff in the case. “Today, I am once again proud to have served my country by standing up for veterans like myself, and ensuring our honor is recognized.”
The settlement, which still must receive approval from a federal judge, would resolve the claims from a group of LGBTQ+ veterans who were kicked out of the military years ago because of their sexual orientation. The veterans filed a federal civil rights suit in August 2023 over the Defense Department’s failure to grant them honorable discharges or remove biased language specifying their sexuality from their service records following the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 2011.
The class action lawsuit, which was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims the Pentagon’s failure to correct this “ongoing discrimination” represents a violation of constitutional rights.
It’s been more than a decade since the military lifted its longstanding ban on openly gay and lesbian troops. But thousands of those discharged under past discriminatory policies like “don’t ask, don’t tell” are still carrying less than honorable discharges today, depriving them of the full spectrum of benefits including VA loan programs, college tuition assistance, health care and some jobs.
A CBS News investigation has documented the Pentagon’s long-running failure to restore honor to the service records of thousands of veterans who were deprived of veterans benefits after their military careers were cut short. A series of reports documented the ways these veterans’ often traumatic separation from the military shaped the course of their lives.
The settlement would establish a streamlined process for LGBTQ+ veterans who were discharged honorably but whose dismissal was attributed to their sexual orientation — enabling them to be re-issued papers that make no reference to it. And for those who were denied an honorable discharge, the Pentagon would commit to a streamlined upgrade review process.
“This proposed settlement delivers long-overdue justice to LGBTQ+ veterans who served our country with honor but were stripped of the dignity and recognition they rightfully earned due to discriminatory discharge policies,” said Elizabeth Kristen, a senior staff attorney with Legal Aid at Work, a group that helped file the suit. “It marks a crucial step in addressing this deep-seated injustice and ensuring these veterans receive the acknowledgment and respect they have long been denied.”
The Pentagon has issued a series of pledges in the past year to right the wrongs inflicted on gay and lesbian service members in the past year. Both the Pentagon and the Department of Justice declined comment on the proposed settlement when reached Monday.
At the time the civil rights suit was filed, a Pentagon spokesman said the military had made attempts to streamline the upgrade process to a short, two-page application. The department said legal representation was no longer required to apply for a discharge review and that the discharge review boards “continue to strive to finalize 90% of all cases within 10 months as required by statute.”
But the lawsuit, prepared by the Impact Fund, Legal Aid at Work and the law firms King & Spalding LLP and Haynes & Boone LLP, called that a “constitutionally inadequate” response, saying it placed the burden on individual veterans to spend months or years obtaining old personnel records before they could file the applications. Those reviews would then take months or years to be processed, they alleged.
The lawsuit did not seek monetary damages, though the settlement allows the court to approve a $350,000 payment by the Pentagon to cover the plaintiffs’ legal costs.
“This case is not about damages,” Jocelyn Larkin, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said at the time it was filed. “This case is about simply changing that piece of paper because the effect of changing that piece of paper is so incredibly consequential for our clients.”
While the full scope of past discrimination against gay and lesbian service members remains unknown, Larkin believes the lawsuit could at least help some 35,000 veterans already identified by a Defense Department Freedom of Information Act request, first reported by CBS News in June 2023. The true figure could be significantly higher. According to the most recent data available from the Pentagon, just 1,375 veterans have been granted relief in the form of a discharge upgrade or correction to their record.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/c90055f3b0c100c7842a6bf549dea640/011425%20Capitol%20Church%20Service%20EH%20TT%2014.jpg)
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/12a85b3c5d5127a0ac100aa0a40ceada/011425%20Capitol%20Church%20Service%20EH%20TT%2013.jpg)
Scottie's Playtime 