Top
Best
New

Posted by ta988 12/11/2025

Meta shuts down global accounts linked to abortion advice and queer content(www.theguardian.com)
368 points | 344 commentspage 2
lunias 12/11/2025|
Protip: don't use Facebook. Meta doesn't control the internet. Post whatever you like. I'm sick of people kowtowing to these platforms; people are increasingly censoring themselves, afraid to even post a picture with a word like "kill", "murder", "suicide", etc. (regardless of context) without obscuring the offending word in some way.
aoeusnth1 12/11/2025||
Is this what he meant by making the company more masculine?
josefritzishere 12/11/2025||
So corporate censorship?
Linguist6514 12/11/2025||
It's interesting how they're so concerned with censorship now. Weren't they the ones who were all up in arms about censoring everyone with right-wing views? But now that the script has flipped, suddenly it's a problem. It's not like we didn't try to warn them that if they force open the floodgates of censorship, then it can happen to them too. Maybe, just maybe, we should all stop trying to control what other people think and say. Mind your fucking business and leave other people alone. I hope this gets resolved. I don't believe that anyone should be censored, whether they agree with my views and beliefs or not.
DharmaPolice 12/11/2025||
I think the key thing (which we used to understand but seem to have forgotten) is that restrictions (including censorship) should be based on conduct, not opinion. Someone spamming commercial links, crap flooding, posting child pornography, even constant off-topic posting etc can justifiably be censored on a platform based on their conduct. But as soon as you advocate for censoring someone purely based on an opinion then you're making it dramatically easier for someone who shares your opinion to be censored later on. Although if we're being intellectually honest, even if there hadn't been any banning of wrongthink in the past, this kind of thing might still have happened anyway given the current administration and their allies. But it's definitely made it easier.

I remember when Alex Jones (or someone of that ilk) was being "de-platformed" by Google, Facebook, etc. Not only were people cheering for it, they were denying that being banned from YouTube (for example) was censorship since "there are other video hosting platforms" (yeah, there are but also not really) and "it's only censorship when it's the government who legally restrict you from speech".

(And Alex Jones is a detestable piece of shit just in case you think I'm a fan. But to paraphrase an old saying, freedom of expression is only a principle if it applies to people you utterly despise).

LocalH 12/11/2025||
I just got a seven day suspension from Reddit for reminding a commenter that freedom of speech in the US only protects you from "consequences" from the government. Reddit's claim? That I was "encouraging violence". The root post was about that woman who got fired from Cinnabon after a video of her calling customers the n-word went viral and then the alt-right donated nearly $100,000 to her.

The ban message also claimed the suspension was done without automation.

Ygg2 12/11/2025|||
> everyone with right-wing views

Not just them. Anyone being slightly critical of vaccines, Russiagate, etc. Anyone warning about building this censorship apparatus. To paraphrase "Man for All Seasons," they crushed every law to get to the devil.

Now the Devil has turned, and there are no laws to protect them from it.

fugalfervor 12/11/2025||
Ah, "Man for All Seasons", my favorite work of revisionist history that rehabilitates the image of a renowned burner of human flesh.
Ygg2 12/11/2025||
Looking at the Wikipedia entry for More, he's no angel but also no torch wielding maniac.
fugalfervor 12/12/2025||
The punishment for "heretics" that he rooted out was almost always burning. He knew anyone found guilty would die by burning and was fine with that.
fzeroracer 12/11/2025|||
Who is this nebulous 'they'? The woke? The queer? Or the people in favor of abortion? The way people use 'they' in these arguments implies some level of equal power. And in this same thread in an entirely separate post you go directly to bat in favor of censorship as long as it's part of a 'content policy', which indicates that you're not actually being forthright with what you truly believe.
Linguist6514 12/12/2025||
Censoring nudity is perfectly reasonable. There are people on Facebook for whom nudity is not appropriate. There are also those who just don't want to see nudity. Should everyone who wants to avoid nudity abstain entirely from using Meta apps? The purpose of Facebook was to connect people. It's SOCIAL media, not SEXUAL media. Nudity is not a requirement for connecting with people. Last time I checked, Messenger allows nudity to be sent in private messages and in message groups. It doesn't need to be, and should not be, on Facebook proper.

And to answer your question, "they" is referring to the people who were starkly in favor of censorship of right-wing opinions, and shadow banning and banning people who post right-wing content, or just generally anything that doesn't fall in line with any of the left-wing's billions of ephemeral and mutable narrative goal posts. I used "they" so as to avoid sounding snarky or antagonistic toward any group in particular, but you asked, so...

immibis 12/12/2025|||
I know it's a hot take, but I strongly believe that some things are good, and some things are bad. I don't think it's necessary to pick either "all things are good" or "all things are bad".

Like, killing is bad. But if I'm alive in WW2 times and I see Nazi soldiers shooting Jewish protestors on the street, I'm going to be horrified, while if I see Jewish protestors shooting Nazi soldiers on the street, I'm going to be significantly less horrified. One could even argue the latter is a good thing.

thrw443 12/11/2025|||
[flagged]
hiddencost 12/11/2025|||
Right wing views like taking away rights, eliminating trans people, murdering civilians in fishing boats, extraordinary renditions of brown people without cause, ... ? Fuck you.
EverydayBalloon 12/11/2025|||
[dead]
thrw443 12/11/2025|||
[flagged]
fwip 12/11/2025||
It literally can't, unless you like to lie.
SG- 12/11/2025|||
reproduction and abortion has nothing to do with fake news tho. you're lumping groups of people into a side to justify your bigoted, selfish and ignorant views.
Ygg2 12/11/2025|||
The same mechanisms established to fight "fake news" are reused to censor reproduction and abortion rights.
thrw443 12/11/2025|||
it does, depends who you ask. who will decide if it does have somethong to do with fake news or not?
saubeidl 12/11/2025||
Objective fact checkers?
j3th9n 12/11/2025||
This.
skrebbel 12/11/2025||
Looking at all this as an outsider, I'm a bit baffled at the responses. Basically, it seems to me that the vast majority of Americans want this.

And by "this" I mean that they want organizations to proactively make changes that fit with the policies of whoever is in power, even if there's no actual laws that make them do this. When Democrats ran the place, big tech was going out of their way to out-woke one another, with product announcement videos somehow starting with land acknowledgements and the likes, and now the same companies are going out of their way to out-dumb one another and this is just one of many examples.

I mean, America is a place with only two sides, and both sides are very on board with having their particular preferences and ideas enforced informally without any sort of legal framework. I think it would be useful for a lot more of the outrage to be directed at that fact.

Just.. be against all of this! This shit where legally you can do whatever the fuck you want but actually in reality you're going to get in serious trouble if you don't toe the party line, and oh by the way the party line switches every 4 years... that's no way to run a business! It's banana republic stuff.

I mean I agree that there's a difference in scale, in that censoring access to abortion advice is actively harmful and most things people felt they had to do under Biden (eg land acknowledgements, DEI trainings etc) are just cringe. But come on, don't politicize everything! It will only come to bite you back in the arse, as this episode illustrates beautifully.

lopis 12/11/2025|
When one side is actively trying to make most people miserable, poor, or dead, while the other side is trying to save people from ruining their lives (e.g. through an unwanted pregnancy), or just be proud of who they are without hurting others, the whole "both sides" argument reaaaly doesn't work. You're comparing the issues of being cringe with committing human rights violations?
cramcgrab 12/11/2025||
I hate political posts on a tech news site, especially ycombinator. These problems will never be solved and only cause agitation on both sides. Closing the ycombinator tab for the day.
Fraterkes 12/11/2025|
I hate posts complaining about political posts on a tech news site. Those posts will always exist and complaining only causes agitation on both sides.
eudamoniac 12/11/2025||
- It's not censorship because it's a private company

- Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences

- Are you saying Facebook should be forced to platform speech it doesn't like?

- Xkcd "showing you the door"

Did I miss any? Heavy pendulums hurt to be struck by.

aa_is_op 12/11/2025||
We have Trump blabbering about EU censorship, but here's the US oligarch's social network doing it at his orders.

The "bastion of free speech" is exporting its censorship to other countries... If I'm an EU lawmaker, I'd honestly use this to just ban Zuckerberg's entire social media sites and get it over with

baggachipz 12/11/2025|
I will never understand Europe's obsession with using WhatsApp. They've had a long time to switch off it for a better and less evil product.
lopis 12/11/2025||
It's not an obsession, it's network effects. I say this as someone whole mostly uses Telegram and Signal and has requested friends to text me on those apps instead of Whatsapp. But most people don't want to have several apps and to have to choose which is the correct one to contact each friend. So the status quo seems to be Whatsapp for people they only have the phone number, and Instagram for the rest.
d--b 12/11/2025||
Do people really think that those seeking an abortion will find it harder because Meta banned a few accounts.

I don't know who's behind this, but they're delusional.

NicuCalcea 12/11/2025||
> Do people really think that those seeking an abortion will find it harder because Meta banned a few accounts.

Yes.

bell-cot 12/11/2025|||
While it may be harder for some, that is not the point.

Zuck has seen that the current regime strongly incentives certain sorts of compliance. He is showing them the outcome which they desire.

lopis 12/11/2025|||
If these pages didn't help people seeking reproductive help, they wouldn't exist.
wkat4242 12/11/2025||
It's not about that. It's about making the subject taboo so that people will be ashamed to talk about it.

If the religious conservatives actually cared about children's lives they'd provide free healthcare, great schooling and opportunities for them. As it stands they only care about them until they're born. Then the amount of care drops sharply especially if they happen to be of the "wrong" colour.

It's much more about suppression of women's rights than actual care about children.

alex1138 12/24/2025|
Mark Zuckerberg is a sociopath, it's been obvious for years

But everyone always excuses it. "He was young when he wrote those IMs"

More comments...