Meta tells the Oversight Board it isn't removing the word 'transgenderism' from its hate speech rules
If anyone was holding out hope that the Oversight Board would provide some kind of check on Meta's rewritten hate speech policy , Meta has just made it clear exactly where it stands. The company published its formal response to the board's criticism, and has declined to commit to any substantive steps to change its rules.
The Oversight Board previously criticized Meta's January policy changes as " hastily announced " and wrote that it was "concerned" about the company's decision to use the term "transgenderism" in its rewritten community standards. The company's policy, announced by Mark Zuckerberg in January shortly before President Donald Trump took office, now permits people to claim that LGBTQ people are mentally ill.
"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 such as 'weird,'" the policy now states. In a decision related to two videos depicting public harassment of transgender women, the Oversight Board had sided with Meta on its decision to leave the videos up. But the board recommended that Meta remove the word "transgenderism," from its policy. "For its rules to have legitimacy, Meta must seek to frame its content policies neutrally," the board said.
The word has a long association with discrimination and dehumanization, human rights groups have said. Human Rights Campaign noted that the term is "socially and scientifically invalid" and "often wielded by anti-trans activists to delegitimize transgender people." GLAAD has likewise noted that "framing a person's transgender identity as a 'concept' or 'ideology' reduces a core identity to an opinion that can be debated, and therefore justifies dehumanization, discrimination, and real-world violence against transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people."
In its formal response, Meta officials said they were still "assessing feasibility" of removing the word from its policies. The company said it would "consider ways to update the terminology" but added that "achieving clarity and transparency in our public explanations may sometimes require including language considered offensive to some."
Meta also declined to commit to the board's three other recommendations in the case. The board had recommended that Meta "identify how the policy and enforcement updates may adversely impact the rights of LGBTQIA+ people, including minors, especially where these populations are at heightened risk," take steps to mitigate those risks and issue regular reports to the board and the public about its work.
It had also recommended that Meta allow users to designate other individuals who are able to report bullying and harassment on their behalf, and that the company make improvements to reduce errors when people report bullying and harassment. Meta said it was "assessing feasibility" of these suggestions.
Meta's response raises uncomfortable questions about just how much influence the ostensibly independent Oversight Board can have. Zuckerberg said that Meta created the Oversight Board so that it wouldn't have to make consequential policy decisions on its own. Previously, the social network has asked the board for help in major decisions, like Donald Trump's suspension and its rules for celebrities and politicians. But Zuckerberg's decision to roll back hate speech protections and ditch third-party fact checking took the board by surprise.
Meta has always been free to ignore the Oversight Board's recommendations, but it has allowed it to influence some of its more controversial policies. That seems like it could be changing, however. Zuckerberg's decision to roll back hate speech protections and ditch third-party fact checking took the board by surprise. And the company now seems to have little interest in engaging with the board's criticism of those changes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Frantically Tries to Stop MAGA Civil War Over Iran
Donald Trump is trying to stave off a MAGA civil war over America's involvement in the Middle East that threatens to tear apart his conservative base. After the president abruptly left the G7 in Canada to meet with his national security team in Washington, the White House went into overdrive to assuage 'America First' die-hards who are angered that the U.S. could be dragged into Israel's battle against Iran. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' he posted on Truth Social on Tuesday, calling for Iran's 'unconditional surrender." 'He is an easy target, but is safe there - we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' As tensions simmered, Vice President J.D. Vance took to social media to talk up the 'remarkable restraint' the president had shown in trying to keep American troops and citizens safe. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared on Fox News to assure people there had been no change in the military's defense posture in the region. On social media, Trump's rapid response team posted video after video to demonstrate that he 'has always been consistent' on Iran. And at the White House, his communications team fired off a press release documenting 15 times that Trump stated Iran 'cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon'. The messaging efforts point to the dilemma Trump faces as he tries to balance his support for Israel with ongoing demands from within his base to avoid another war in the Middle East. Having come to office promising no more 'endless wars,' Trump must now decide whether to help Israel destroy a deeply buried Iranian nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow using a 30,000 pound U.S. bomb known as a 'bunker buster'. But such a move would risk any remaining chance of the nuclear disarmament deal Trump has been pursuing and further divide the very base that got him elected. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' Trump said on Tuesday. 'Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived and manufactured 'stuff'. Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA.' Others in MAGA, however, are not convinced of America's ongoing role. Carlson, a former Fox News host, entered the fray last week, calling Trump complicit and suggesting that the administration 'drop Israel [and] let them fight their own wars.' This led to Trump suggesting on Monday that he was irrelevant now that he no longer had his own television show, which in turn, led to Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene siding with Carlson. 'Tucker Carlson is one of my favorite people. He fiercely loves his wife, children, and our country. Since being fired by the neocon network Fox News, he has more popularity and viewers than ever before,' she said. Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk had earlier warned the issue could cause 'a massive schism in MAGA and potentially disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency.' MAGA activist Jack Posobiec agreed, saying that 'a direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' But Vance's lengthy post on X sought to de-escalate tensions. Noting the 'crazy stuff' that was being put out on social media, he said that Trump had been 'amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment,' Vance added. 'That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Leavitt Gets Skewered on Trump's Bogus ‘Two-Week Deadlines'
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt took heat from a reporter after announcing that President Donald Trump had punted on whether to attack Iran, giving himself a two-week deadline to decide. The reporter pointed out to Leavitt that Trump has previously given himself two-week deadlines on other major decisions, particularly related to the Russia-Ukraine war, and then failed to meet them. 'He's used this phrase about two weeks several times, in terms of 'We expect a two-week deadline,' and then you give another two-week deadline,' the reporter said. 'How can we be sure that he's gonna stick to this one, making a decision on Iran?' Leavitt's first response was to blame Joe Biden, saying that 'these are two different global conflicts that the president inherited from our previous, incompetent president.' Eventually Leavitt suggested that Trump's tendency to push his own self-assigned deadlines comes from his desire to broker peace. 'The last time the president said two weeks, you saw [Russia and Ukraine] have direct negotiations for the first time in years,' Leavitt said. 'The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution to the problems and the global conflicts in this world,' she added. 'He is a peace-maker-in-chief, he is the peace-through-strength president. If there is a chance for diplomacy, the president will grab it. But he is not afraid to use strength, I will add.' Questions about how Trump will handle the conflict between Israel and Iran have swirled over the last week, and the president has yet to give a straight answer. The prospect of the U.S. joining the conflict on Israel's behalf has divided the president's MAGA supporters. The last two-week deadline Trump set came on May 28, with regard to determining whether Russian President Vladimir Putin actually wants peace against Ukraine. It came and passed last week with no acknowledgment from the president. On April 24, Trump used the two-week line to evade a reporter's question about aid to Ukraine. Three days later, asked whether he trusted Putin, the president said, 'We'll let you know in two weeks.' And on May 19, Trump was asked whether Ukraine had done enough to foster negotiations. 'I'd rather tell you in about two weeks from now because I can't say yes or no,' Trump said. Trump's penchant for backing off of big decisions during his second term has led to the rise of the acronym TACO, short for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' It went mainstream after Trump repeatedly lowered his steep tariff on China. The president hates the acronym, as he made clear to a reporter who asked him about in May. 'Don't ever say what you said,' Trump told the reporter. 'That's a nasty question.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Issues Grave Warning to Reporters: ‘You Are in Danger'
President Donald Trump delivered a stark warning to a group of reporters interviewing him at an airfield in New Jersey, telling them they were 'in danger.' The president was fielding questions about Israel's conflict with Iran after announcing on Thursday that he had given himself a two-week deadline to decide on whether to attack Iran. 'Are you worried Iran's proxies would wage terror attacks against American targets abroad if you order military action?' a reporter asked. 'We're always concerned about that, and we have to take them out and be very strong,' Trump began, before his response took a seemingly dark turn. 'You're even in danger talking to me right now,' he said. 'Do you know that? You are in danger talking to me right now, so I should probably get out of here. But you guys are actually in danger. Can you believe it?' Interestingly, this isn't the first time that Trump has offered 'danger' as a reason to end an interview. Back in August, Trump cut short a conversation with Newsweek while he was near the U.S.-Mexico border because he was worried that authorities hadn't found a man who threatened his life. 'Can I tell you something,' he said then. 'We're in danger standing here talking, so let's not talk any longer. No, I know about it, but they don't want me standing here. They don't want you standing here either.' On the campaign trail, Trump survived two attempts on his life, including a near-miss at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a bullet scraped his ear. The question of whether Trump will join Israel in attacking Iran has divided MAGA over the last week, enraging even some of the president's most devout supporters. On Thursday, Trump punted the decision. The White House announced that he had given himself two weeks to come to a final determination. However, some have pointed out that Trump has a habit of giving himself two weeks to make important decisions—and then ignoring his own deadline. Over the last several months, Trump has repeatedly used the two-week line concerning several different questions about the Russia-Ukraine war.
