Can Those Who Care About Equality Afford To Abandon Facebook or Instagram?

Meta is in chaos following an overhaul of its content moderation policies aimed at appeasing the incoming presidential administration. Mark Zuckerberg’s changes, framed as a commitment to “free expression,” significantly reduce restrictions on speech related to immigration, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The updates effectively greenlight hate speech, particularly targeting the queer community, immigrants, and those with mental health challenges.

According to 404Media, Meta’s internal forums have been flooded with protests from employees expressing outrage. Screenshots obtained by the outlet reveal hundreds of comments from staff grappling with the implications of the new policies. One widely shared internal post reads: “I had to reread the policy language many times to believe what I was seeing—a very clear statement that we’re okay with people attacking others based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is going to cause so much harm. Please reconsider this change.”

The backlash has been particularly intense among Meta’s LGBTQ+ employees, many of whom have questioned how these policies align with the company’s inclusivity policies. Some have taken leaves of absence, while others are openly considering resignation. “Morale of fellow queer employees is in the absolute shitter, surprising no one,” one employee wrote.

The updated guidelines now explicitly permit derogatory statements, including accusations of mental illness or abnormality based on gender or sexual orientation. Examples cited by Platformer include:

“Trans people aren’t real. They’re mentally ill.”
“Gays are not normal.”
“Women are crazy.”
“Trans people are freaks.”
“A trans person isn’t a he or she, it’s an it.”

Zuckerberg’s decision to carve out protections for hate speech under the guise of fostering “political discourse” is not surprising, especially given his recent meetings with Donald Trump and MAGA influencers like Charlie Kirk and Benny Johnson. These overtures to the right wing come at a cost to marginalized communities, particularly disillusioning for those who may have fled Twitter for Threads in search of a safer online environment.

The only glimmer of hope is the intense backlash—both within Meta and from the broader public. “I’ve never felt so strongly that we’re on the wrong side of history,” one employee wrote, per Platformer. The internal protests highlight the growing resistance to corporate decisions that prioritize power over people.

However, this resistance faces its own challenge. Billionaires like Zuckerberg and Bezos have engineered ecosystems so deeply embedded in daily life — Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Amazon Prime, and Whole Foods — that quitting or boycotting these services feels nearly impossible for many. In vast parts of the U.S. dominated by big-box stores and chain restaurants, alternatives are scarce. This is the core issue with big tech monopolies: after eliminating, absorbing, or copying their competition, they degrade their offerings with impunity, knowing that users have nowhere else to turn. Until a critical mass of people decides to disrupt their routines to protect the dignity and lives of others, the cycle will continue.

The question is whether we’re willing to upset our lives to challenge these corporate behemoths—or whether their grip on our daily existence is already too strong to break. Zuckerberg, for his part, seems unconcerned. In a statement yesterday, he dismissed critics, suggesting that the only people who would quit Facebook or Instagram over his policies are merely “virtue signaling.”

Background: 404 Media, Platformer, Status