Meta’s overhaul of its “Hateful Conduct” and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies has drawn sharp condemnation after the company explicitly allowed users to label LGBTQ+ people as “mentally ill.”
The policy changes, announced by CEO Mark Zuckerberg under the pretext of promoting “free expression,” have been widely criticised for targeting marginalised groups while maintaining strict protections for dominant demographics such as Christians and white people.
The timing of the changes has not gone unnoticed. Zuckerberg, who previously faced warnings from Donald Trump about potential imprisonment for insufficient support during the 2020 election, is now taking steps to align Meta with the far-right. Following a $1m donation to Trump’s inauguration fund, these new policies are seen as an overt gesture of political allegiance. When asked if Zuckerberg might be responding to his earlier threats, Trump replied, “Probably. Yeah, probably.”
Internally, Meta has descended into chaos. LGBTQ+ employees have described the company’s environment as hostile and unsafe, with one staff member characterising the atmosphere as “total chaos.” Internal conversations obtained from Meta’s Workplace platform by 404 Media reveal widespread dissent, with employees condemning the changes as ideologically driven and deliberately harmful. Many LGBTQ+ employees feel betrayed, unsupported, and some have openly considered resigning in protest.
Critics have lambasted Meta for explicitly removing protections for marginalised communities while pandering to far-right rhetoric. Employees have pointed out that the changes were implemented without consultation from affected groups or content moderation experts, breaking from Meta’s historical approach of seeking external input on controversial decisions. Some internal comments accused the leadership of pursuing an ideological agenda, with one employee stating, “I think it’s clear that the policy team is not open to any feedback here and is committed to an ideological project that sacrifices some of our communities in order to achieve their goal.”
Zuckerberg dismissed the backlash, claiming most users would welcome the changes despite mounting evidence of harm. He accused those of leaving his platforms of “virtue signalling” despite the policy change being described as a “green light” for hate speech and a betrayal of Meta’s stated mission to create inclusive online communities.
Adding to the outrage, Alan Rusbridger, the former editor of The Guardian and a current member of Meta’s oversight board, has refused to step down despite the company’s policy shift permitting explicitly harmful rhetoric, including claims that Jewish people are “greedy” and LGBTQ+ people are “freaks.” Rusbridger’s continued involvement is seen as tacit approval of the changes.
Meta’s decisions mark a dark turn, abandoning any pretence of protecting vulnerable groups. The changes are not about free expression but about aligning with far-right ideologies, fostering an environment where bigotry is emboldened while marginalised voices are silenced further. The company now faces escalating internal dissent and external condemnation for what many describe as a deliberate betrayal of its own employees and users.
Will Zuckerberg care? All signs seems to point to ‘no’.