Meta’s New Content Moderation Policy: A Threat to Sexual and Reproductive Health Information Online
Last Week’s Announcement
Last week, social media giant Meta announced major changes to its content moderation practices. This includes an end to its fact-checking program, starting with the United States. Meta’s platforms – which include Facebook, Instagram, and Threads – will no longer employ human fact-checkers and moderation teams, relying instead on a user-sourced “community notes” model.
Concerns Over Free Speech and Disinformation
Meta’s hateful conduct policy also changed last week to allow more “free speech”. Advocate groups and experts warn this could lead to an increase in abusive and demeaning statements about Indigenous people, migrants, and refugees, women, and LGBTQIA+ people. Many experts now also fear an increase in disinformation and misinformation on Meta’s platforms.
A ‘Town Square’ for Health Info
Since the COVID pandemic, online platforms have been increasingly important for sexual and reproductive health organisations. On social media, organisations such as Family Planning Australia can easily and inexpensively share factual information about sensitive and potentially stigmatising public health issues, including unplanned pregnancy and HIV. For good or ill, Meta’s platforms are spaces where public health information can reach diverse audiences.
From Too Much Censorship to Targeted Attacks
Meta’s own Oversight Board has acknowledged that the platform has over-censored content related to nudity, sexuality, and gender in the past. This has resulted in sexual and reproductive health content being blocked or “shadow-banned” (when the content is hidden from other users without the poster’s knowledge). The community notes process replaces human moderators with crowd-sourcing. Information is gathered from multiple users with a diverse range of political views. A note is then added to flag misinformation.
Where to From Here?
Evidence suggests the move to community notes has already led many LGBTQIA+ and women’s health organisations to close their X accounts. Health service users are leaving Meta platforms, too. Some health outreach organisations are encouraging community members to stay connected through private newsletters and mailing lists. But not everyone is comfortable sharing their email address. Social media platforms offer privacy and anonymity for vulnerable people who may not have access to other sources of reliable sexual and reproductive information.
Conclusion
Meta’s new content moderation policy poses significant risks to sexual and reproductive health information online. The move to community notes has already led to a decline in the availability of reliable health information on the platform. As a result, health service providers and users are exploring new platforms and strategies to ensure the continued availability of accurate and trustworthy health information.
FAQs
Q: What is the community notes model?
A: The community notes model is a user-sourced content moderation system where information is gathered from multiple users with a diverse range of political views. A note is then added to flag misinformation.
Q: How does this affect sexual and reproductive health information online?
A: The community notes model has already led to a decline in the availability of reliable sexual and reproductive health information on Meta’s platforms. This poses significant risks to vulnerable populations who rely on these platforms for access to accurate and trustworthy health information.
Q: What are the implications for health service providers?
A: Health service providers are exploring new platforms and strategies to ensure the continued availability of accurate and trustworthy health information. This may involve experimenting with untested platforms and developing private newsletters and mailing lists.
Q: What can be done to mitigate the risks posed by Meta’s new content moderation policy?
A: Health service providers and users can explore new platforms and strategies to ensure the continued availability of accurate and trustworthy health information. This may involve developing private newsletters and mailing lists, experimenting with untested platforms, and advocating for policy changes that prioritize the availability of reliable health information online.