Mark Zuckerberg announced this week that Meta will eliminate fact-checkers and allow some hate speech against LGBTQ people and immigrants. Popular Information's Judd Legum explains.
Mark Zuckerberg's latest move to appease Trump’s incoming administration? Allowing users to call LGBTQ people mentally ill, citing "political and religious discourse." This isn’t free speech; it’s targeted hate. Meta’s revised hate speech policies openly strip protections for LGBTQ individuals, women, immigrants, and other marginalized groups—leaving them exposed to harassment and dehumanization in the name of "prioritizing speech."
But it doesn’t stop there. Meta has scrapped rules forbidding hate based on race, ethnicity, disability, and gender identity. It’s removed safeguards that banned the cruelest slurs and misgendering language. Fact-checking? Gone. Instead, they’re rolling out a community-driven system akin to X’s chaos-driven "Community Notes." Translation: truth is now up for a popularity vote.
This isn’t moderation. It’s normalization—of bigotry, misinformation, and violence.
Zuckerberg and Meta’s tech allies are openly courting Trump, pouring millions into his inauguration fund, while installing UFC’s Dana White, a Trump loyalist, on Meta’s board. This isn’t just corporate sycophancy—it’s a declaration of allegiance to a regime bent on dismantling equality and truth.
Meta is no longer a social media company. It’s a propaganda machine for hate and authoritarianism, profiting off division and vitriol.
If you value democracy, dignity, and decency: leave Meta’s platforms. There are alternatives. Stop giving your clicks, data, and dollars to a corporation that thrives on silencing the vulnerable and amplifying the powerful. This is not just a bad business decision—it’s complicity.
Meta has absolutely crossed a line. Allowing its users to say members of the LGBTQIA community are mentally ill. As on Shitter, "free speech" is apparently now synonymous with hate speech on Meta.
Yeah, it’s not about free speech. Unless we’re talking about Z man expressing his bigoted views via his policies. If it was just allowing people to say whatever they wanted, he wouldn’t have removed the “Pride”, “Transgender” and “Nonbinary” themes from Facebook messenger. That move had nothing to do with “Free Speech”.
I don't think the trans community was well-served with the "it's not mental illness" narrative. Some court cases have ruled that gender dysphoria is a disability. What would that disability be based on? Gender dysphoria, previously named gender identity disorder, got it's new name because federal law was preventing insurance from paying for treatments. So the Blanchard DSM crowd did an end run around that in their secret meetings and changed the DSM. The DSM is about mental illness and disorders.
I've landed in the psych ward twice for threatening self-harm and suicide when not provided care for gender dysphoria: How is that not related to mental illness? Notice, I said psych ward, not the main hospital area.
I'm comfortable with my gender dysphoria being framed as mental illness. Talking and debating that is okay.
Calling me a Troon, or the T-slur, and threatening to shoot Troons, not so much.
Not everyone experienced gender dysphoria the same way or the same intensity. You don't need to have dysphoria to be trans. I much prefer the term gender incongruence. Regardless of the label of mental illness you can't discriminate against trans people. You can't call people mentally ill. The changes in policy are not rooted in semantics of who is mentally ill and who isn't, it is rooted in hatred and control.
What about homosexuality. It was originally listed in the DSM as a mental illness and then removed as such. Would you like same sex attraction to be a mental illness as well ?
I think this kind of stuff makes it clear why the DSM doesn't want to weigh-in on defining what is crossing the line into sex addiction?
Another excerpt from TMWWBQ: "In a 1981 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AIDS patients with an average age of 35 years reported an average of 60 sex partners per year, or approximately 1,000 lifetime partners."
I think the numbers are very accurate based on what I've witnessed in adult bookstores and theaters.
I once had 9 sex partners in 4-hours in such a setting.
The Man Who Would Be Queen is an interesting read because it's almost more about gay men than trans women. I do dislike how Bailey was peddling the "brain" theory type stuff, which has never been proven. A study a couple years ago put another big nail in that coffin. Whether there is a gay gene, etc.
"The panel is also asked about the number of sex partners they have had, and their answers always elicit gasps. All the men have had hundreds of sex partners. Ben correctly reminds us that it depends on what we mean by sex—gay men don’t have vaginal intercourse much, and most of the sex acts are oral. Still, even using the broader definition of sex, the typical heterosexual Northwestern student finds it amazing that anyone has had so many partners."
Me personally, I would not classify being gay itself in the league of being mentally ill. But there are other things tied to it that do raise valid questions. For example, in Bailey's TMWWBQ, he wrote that gay men typically have 400-500 sex partners in their lifetimes. I'm in that category, probably in the 500 range as well speaking. How does that compare to heterosexual cisgender men? How does it compare to lesbians?
This is what one of the folks who helped to author DSM-5 had to say: "Blanchard said he would still classify homosexual sex as abnormal."
Seeing that FB downranks accounts for linking to Substack and other external sites is a solid reason to shut down accounts there.
The way Meta is deciding to promote hatred is simply the cherry on top.
I’m deleting accounts now. Thank you for posting this article to help me make my decision.
𝗚𝗘𝗧 𝗢𝗙𝗙 𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗔’𝗦 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗠𝗦!
𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲—𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸, 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺, 𝗼𝗿 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀, 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀?
Mark Zuckerberg's latest move to appease Trump’s incoming administration? Allowing users to call LGBTQ people mentally ill, citing "political and religious discourse." This isn’t free speech; it’s targeted hate. Meta’s revised hate speech policies openly strip protections for LGBTQ individuals, women, immigrants, and other marginalized groups—leaving them exposed to harassment and dehumanization in the name of "prioritizing speech."
But it doesn’t stop there. Meta has scrapped rules forbidding hate based on race, ethnicity, disability, and gender identity. It’s removed safeguards that banned the cruelest slurs and misgendering language. Fact-checking? Gone. Instead, they’re rolling out a community-driven system akin to X’s chaos-driven "Community Notes." Translation: truth is now up for a popularity vote.
This isn’t moderation. It’s normalization—of bigotry, misinformation, and violence.
Zuckerberg and Meta’s tech allies are openly courting Trump, pouring millions into his inauguration fund, while installing UFC’s Dana White, a Trump loyalist, on Meta’s board. This isn’t just corporate sycophancy—it’s a declaration of allegiance to a regime bent on dismantling equality and truth.
Meta is no longer a social media company. It’s a propaganda machine for hate and authoritarianism, profiting off division and vitriol.
If you value democracy, dignity, and decency: leave Meta’s platforms. There are alternatives. Stop giving your clicks, data, and dollars to a corporation that thrives on silencing the vulnerable and amplifying the powerful. This is not just a bad business decision—it’s complicity.
••••https://substack.com/@patricemersault?utm_source=user-menu
Meta has absolutely crossed a line. Allowing its users to say members of the LGBTQIA community are mentally ill. As on Shitter, "free speech" is apparently now synonymous with hate speech on Meta.
Coward
Yeah, it’s not about free speech. Unless we’re talking about Z man expressing his bigoted views via his policies. If it was just allowing people to say whatever they wanted, he wouldn’t have removed the “Pride”, “Transgender” and “Nonbinary” themes from Facebook messenger. That move had nothing to do with “Free Speech”.
I don't think the trans community was well-served with the "it's not mental illness" narrative. Some court cases have ruled that gender dysphoria is a disability. What would that disability be based on? Gender dysphoria, previously named gender identity disorder, got it's new name because federal law was preventing insurance from paying for treatments. So the Blanchard DSM crowd did an end run around that in their secret meetings and changed the DSM. The DSM is about mental illness and disorders.
I've landed in the psych ward twice for threatening self-harm and suicide when not provided care for gender dysphoria: How is that not related to mental illness? Notice, I said psych ward, not the main hospital area.
I'm comfortable with my gender dysphoria being framed as mental illness. Talking and debating that is okay.
Calling me a Troon, or the T-slur, and threatening to shoot Troons, not so much.
Not everyone experienced gender dysphoria the same way or the same intensity. You don't need to have dysphoria to be trans. I much prefer the term gender incongruence. Regardless of the label of mental illness you can't discriminate against trans people. You can't call people mentally ill. The changes in policy are not rooted in semantics of who is mentally ill and who isn't, it is rooted in hatred and control.
What about homosexuality. It was originally listed in the DSM as a mental illness and then removed as such. Would you like same sex attraction to be a mental illness as well ?
I think this kind of stuff makes it clear why the DSM doesn't want to weigh-in on defining what is crossing the line into sex addiction?
Another excerpt from TMWWBQ: "In a 1981 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AIDS patients with an average age of 35 years reported an average of 60 sex partners per year, or approximately 1,000 lifetime partners."
I think the numbers are very accurate based on what I've witnessed in adult bookstores and theaters.
I once had 9 sex partners in 4-hours in such a setting.
The Man Who Would Be Queen is an interesting read because it's almost more about gay men than trans women. I do dislike how Bailey was peddling the "brain" theory type stuff, which has never been proven. A study a couple years ago put another big nail in that coffin. Whether there is a gay gene, etc.
"The panel is also asked about the number of sex partners they have had, and their answers always elicit gasps. All the men have had hundreds of sex partners. Ben correctly reminds us that it depends on what we mean by sex—gay men don’t have vaginal intercourse much, and most of the sex acts are oral. Still, even using the broader definition of sex, the typical heterosexual Northwestern student finds it amazing that anyone has had so many partners."
https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/TMWWBQ.pdf
Me personally, I would not classify being gay itself in the league of being mentally ill. But there are other things tied to it that do raise valid questions. For example, in Bailey's TMWWBQ, he wrote that gay men typically have 400-500 sex partners in their lifetimes. I'm in that category, probably in the 500 range as well speaking. How does that compare to heterosexual cisgender men? How does it compare to lesbians?
This is what one of the folks who helped to author DSM-5 had to say: "Blanchard said he would still classify homosexual sex as abnormal."
https://www.vice.com/en/article/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-the-manual-on-sex-talks-about-sex/