David Bridges
Will Meta’s decision to ease its content moderation policies and eliminate fact-checking measures compromise the brand safety of Facebook and Instagram?
Many believe this could be the case, especially considering the recent changes at X. Following Elon Musk’s initiative to downsize the internal content moderation team in favor of user-generated Community Notes, various reports suggest that X has become an unsafe environment for brands to communicate effectively. This shift has led to a staggering decline of about 60% in X’s advertising revenue.
Could a similar fate befall Meta, as Mark Zuckerberg and his team face potential backlash from new third-party reports? These reports indicate that Meta’s imitative strategies may render its platforms less secure for advertisers, paralleling the situation at X.
It’s a possibility worth considering.
To begin with, a significant part of X’s challenges can be attributed to Musk himself, known for his propensity to generate headlines with his provocative remarks and stances. This also serves as Musk’s strength, as his persona acts as an organic promotional tool for his companies, eliminating the need for traditional advertising.
However, at X, with Musk increasingly adopting controversial and divisive opinions—while concurrently being the platform’s most followed user—the association between these beliefs and the app has likely tarnished the platform’s reputation more than Meta’s recent modifications will.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that Meta’s alterations are undoubtedly contentious and will likely result in a rise in harmful content being disseminated among users of its platforms.
For instance, the latest updates to Meta’s Hateful Conduct policy, released today, reveal significant changes:
- Firstly, Meta will no longer enforce an outright ban on the use of slurs directed at individuals based on their “protected characteristics,” which include race, ethnicity, and gender identity. This shift essentially removes a critical safeguard that previously prevented targeted harassment based on these fundamental aspects of identity.
- Moreover, users will now be permitted to use terms related to sex or gender, even in derogatory contexts, within discussions surrounding political or religious issues, such as transgender rights, immigration, or homosexuality. This means harmful language can be employed in these discussions without the contextual safeguards that were previously in place.
- Additionally, there have been numerous changes aimed at simplifying the guidelines, allowing for greater latitude around potentially offensive terms. Meta has also lifted restrictions on comments targeting individuals based on the suggestion that they may have spread COVID-19, an issue that has become largely obsolete.
- Furthermore, Meta is adopting a more hands-off approach in discussions surrounding sensitive topics like immigration and gender identity, which frequently feature in political discourse and debates.
Essentially, Meta is reducing its regulatory framework to permit a broader spectrum of speech. This reduction in both internal moderation and external fact-checking personnel will inevitably lead to a larger volume of harmful comments gaining visibility across the platform. Consequently, users will encounter an increased frequency of offensive and harmful posts on these platforms.
Even Zuckerberg himself acknowledges this reality.
In his overview of the recent policy updates, Zuckerberg stated:
“The reality is that this is a trade-off. It means we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.”
As a result, a greater number of harmful posts will bypass moderation, and considering the platform’s vast user base of over 3 billion daily active users, the potential for harm is significantly amplified compared to X.
Logically, this scenario should prompt more advertisers to reassess their strategies for Facebook and Instagram, similar to what occurred with X. However, I suspect that the backlash will not be as pronounced.
Facebook and Instagram offer such extensive reach, with massive user bases that brands often find it difficult to ignore. The significant potential for engagement on these platforms might dissuade many brands from withdrawing their advertising, even if they took a moral stance against X, which has a much smaller audience compared to Meta.
However, realistically, brands should indeed reconsider their advertising approaches. There ought to be similar critical assessments regarding Meta’s advertising placements, alongside the impacts these changes will have on brands. The consequences will be significant, just as they were on X, and it is only fair for Meta to face the same level of scrutiny.
Moreover, the potential for harm on Facebook and Instagram is likely to be greater due to their expansive reach. The relative risks posed by these changes are considerable.
So, should you be reevaluating your social media advertising strategy? Yes, it would be prudent to do so, although I doubt the ensuing moral panic will mirror the levels witnessed previously.
Cameron Steel
Tessa Everly
