A couple of days ago, we told you Mark Zuckerberg had a come-to-Jesus moment on free speech and announced that Meta -- parent company of Facebook and Instagram -- would be doing away with independent fact-checkers in favor of X-style community notes. Some on the Right are understandably skeptical about this (this writer included), but the Left went into full-on meltdown mode. Politifact's executive director was furious, the International Fact-Checking Network (cause that's a thing, apparently) called an emergency meeting, The New York Times published one of the funniest headlines of all time, and Brian Stelter was hyperventilating over it.
Now Axios is warning us Facebook and Instagram will turn into an utter hellscape of people saying mean things, apparently:
Under Meta's newly relaxed moderation policies, women can be compared to household objects, ethnic groups can be called "filth," users can call for the exclusion of gay people from certain professions and people can refer to a transgender or non-binary person as an "it."
— Axios (@axios) January 9, 2025
Under Meta's newly relaxed moderation policies, women can be compared to household objects, ethnic groups can be called 'filth,' users can call for the exclusion of gay people from certain professions and people can refer to a transgender or non-binary person as an 'it.'
Why it matters: Meta's move to do away with third-party fact checkers made headlines, but some experts are even more troubled by policy shifts they say could chill online speech and lead to more real-world violence.
Zoom in: Meta's revised policy around hateful conduct (previously referred to as 'hate speech') removes some prohibitions entirely, while also making new exceptions that allow people who are women, transgender, gay or immigrants to be targeted in ways prohibited for other groups.
- 'We do allow content arguing for gender-based limitations of military law enforcement and teaching jobs,' Meta says in its revised policy. 'We also allow the same content based on sexual orientation, when the content is based on religious beliefs.'
- Elsewhere Meta states: 'We do allow 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.''
For starters, there's no such thing as 'hate speech', Axios. There is just speech you don't like. And this writer -- having been online for a long, long time notices that these rules of 'hate speech' never apply to the Left.
This writer has been called some pretty vile things by the oh-so-tolerant Leftists simply for being a woman who isn't a raging AWFL. You know what she does? She laughs at them, mocks them for a bit, blocks and moves on. Because she's an adult and not a wannabe fascist.
But more to the point, this article proves the real purpose of 'fact-checkers' was never about facts and truth, but about censoring speech. Because none of the complaints they register have anything to do with facts, but they do have everything to do with feelings.
Remember: Axios was the outlet that said Kamala Harris was never, ever the border czar. After scrubbing their story about how she was the border czar.
If you think what Meta/Facebook allows is bad, wait until you hear about the U.S. Constitution
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) January 9, 2025
They'll be appalled.
Honestly wondering which dishwasher it wrote this hilarious nonsense
— The Dank Knight 🦇 (@capeandcowell) January 9, 2025
Well done.
It’s incredible that journalists don’t understand basic concepts like free speech.
— 🐺 (@LeighWolf) January 9, 2025
Polite speech doesn’t need protection. The first amendment exists specifically to protect this type of objectionable speech.
They think free speech applies only to their profession and the groups they like.
I don't know if I'll ever get used to journos being the front line of the speech lockdown brigade.
— pragmatometer (@pragmatometer) January 9, 2025
It really is something, isn't it?
Can i get a ruling on "tranny?"
— John Ocasio-Rodham Nolte (@NolteNC) January 9, 2025
Laughed. Out. Loud.
Free speech and expression inherently involve the right to say things that aren't nice.
— Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) January 9, 2025
Cope.
Cope and seethe.
So, free speech and freedom of the press. Got it.
— Super Journalist (Retired) - JOURN-EL of Skrypton (@Magnum_CK) January 9, 2025
It's the First Amendment in all its glory.
Leftwing activist @inafried, who @axios hired as a reporter, is upset that free speech could exist somewhere and not be destroyed with draconian censorship. https://t.co/jabu7elBem
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 9, 2025
Looks exactly like we expected the 'journalist' behind that piece to look.
File this under "First Amendment Workers Who Don't Grasp Free Speech." https://t.co/dLh5JkHzju
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) January 9, 2025
That's a big file.
The thing about free speech is that it sometimes entails wrong and even deeply offensive sentiments and ideas. We need a remedial class for journos. https://t.co/kwhHbbyRzB
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) January 9, 2025
First Amendment 101.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member