If anyone hopes that the Overseas Board will investigate any kind of hateful speech policy, Meta has just made it clear where it stands. The company has officially published its response to the board’s criticism, and has refused to be associated with any important action to change its rules.
The overweight board had earlier criticized Meta’s January policy changes, as “hurry” and wrote that the company’s decision to use the term “transgenderism” in re -writing social standards is “related to it”. Shortly before President Donald Trump took office, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company’s policy, now allowing people to claim that the LGBTQ people are mentally ill.
“We allow charges of mental illness or being abnormal when based on gender or sexual orientation, political and religious dialogue and general irreversible use of words about transgenderism and homosexuality, such as ‘strange’,” policy. In a decision on two videos reflecting public harassment of transgender women, the surveillance board supported Meta on its decision to leave the videos. But the board recommended that Meta remove the word “transgenderism” from its policy. The board said, “In order to legalize its rules, Meta must try to neutralize its content policies.”
Human rights groups have said that the word is discriminatory and a long commitment to non -humanity. The Human Rights Campaign noted that the term “is socially and scientifically wrong” and “is often supported by transgender workers to represent the transgender people.” Gald has also noted that “developing a person’s transgender identity as ‘concept’ or ‘ideology’ reduces a basic identity that can be discussed in the opinion, and therefore transgender, non -formal, and gender -forming people are unhealthy, unprecedented and unhealthy.”
In his formal response, Meta officials said they were still “evaluating the feasibility” of removing the word from its policies. The company said it would “consider ways to update terms” but added that “sometimes the language is considered invasive to some people in achieving explanation and transparency in our public explanations.”
Meta also refused to commit three other board recommendations in this matter. The board recommended that Meta “indicate how policy and implementation refreshments could have a negative impact on the rights of LGBT Qia+ individuals, including minors, especially where these populations are at greater risk,” take steps to reduce these risks and release the board and the public.
It also recommended that MetaThus allow users to nominate other people who are eligible to report bullying and harassment on their own, and when people report bullying and harassment, the company improves errors. Meta said it was “feasibility” of these suggestions.
Meta response raises uncomfortable questions about how much the free surveillance board has an impact. Zuckerberg said that Meta formed an overweight board so that it did not need to make decisions as a result of its policy. Earlier, the social network has asked the board to help big decisions, such as Donald Trump’s suspension and its rules for celebrities and politicians. But the decision to examine Zuckerberg’s hateful speech and the facts of the third party surprised the board.
Meta has always been free to ignore the recommendations of the surveillance board, but has allowed it to affect some of its controversial policies. However, it seems that it may change. The decision to overtake Zuckerberg’s hateful speech reservations and examine the facts of the third party made the board surprised. And it seems that the company is no longer interested in criticizing these board changes.
