Skip to main content


We applaud Meta’s efforts to try to fix its over-censorship problem but will watch closely to make sure it is a good-faith effort and rolled out fairly and not merely a political maneuver to accommodate the upcoming U.S. administration change. eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-…
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

What do you think it is, actually? Of course, it’s only such a move to allow the nazi (MAGAs ARE nazis!) propaganda to be freely shared. What else it could be, seriously?

As the late Twitter before it, Facebook just became a nazi bar. That’s all.

Wilfried Klaebe reshared this.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I admire your optimism but feel safe betting more than a few pints that everything following "not merely" in your post is true.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

What basis do you have for assuming good-faith from Facebook?

I usually trust the EFF but this statement concerns me.

in reply to Noxy 🐾

@noxypaws This statement should probably cause you to reevaluate your trust for the EFF. I don't think anybody, ever, has ever accused facebook of "over-moderation", except outright fascists.

What the absolute fuck, EFF?

in reply to CharLES ☭ H

@celesteh yeah occasionally I think I should start donating to them again, and then stuff like this reminds me I stopped after their Kiwi farms stance 😒
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

you "applaud" any aspect of this? lmao you mean I have to keep an eye on EFF writers, as well? There is nothing to applaud here.

Did EFF applaud fascists attacking affirmative action because they said "it wasnt needed anymore"?

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I have mixed feelings about this.

I understand that the EFF strives to support free speech online, which this technically supports, but the EFF should also understand better than anyone that platforms beholden to advertisers choosing to allow harmful content only results in the decline of that platform's revenue from losing advertisers, which almost always directly causes enshittification of the platform. (See: Twitter, or "X" I guess.)

in reply to Bolt

Community notes can be valuable, and the fact the EFF is stating they support dual-mechanism systems for moderation, instead of exclusively one, makes sense, but the language and tone of this post feels like it's downplaying these effects.

Instead of going "they're replacing their existing system that could rely on actual fact-checkers and moderators with random people on the internet that MIGHT know what's right, and that's probably bad"

You said "maybe they'll be good in the future?"

in reply to Bolt

I'm glad you've called out their fake reduction of moderation concerns by relocating the state their teams operate in, but even that part doesn't feel like you're properly emphasizing the effort they've been putting in to manipulate public opinion, in this case, by falsely appearing as more neutral.
in reply to Bolt

I wholly understand the nuance you're going for, with the understanding that Meta still had issues with over-moderating other topics, or censoring for the sake of brand safety over all else, but I think you haven't exactly communicated this in a way that shows how much you truly wish for out of these companies.

This feels more like a corporate statement after a scandal than it does a proper critique of their new stance.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

This is an insanely tone deaf blog post that ignores a lot of context around Meta's move to less moderation. It's coming at a time where social media platforms, namely Twitter, have been openly endorsing attacks on the LGBTQ+ community under the guise of "free speech absolutism," which this post reads as a tacit endorsement of. Also, the even bigger elephant in the room is that this is obviously a move to appease Trump and MAGA Republicans, so it's likely that lessening moderation will harm the LGBTQ+ community you profess to care so much for in this post. Honestly, there are some valid points made here, but this post definitely should've had another draft that had deeper considerations for the context and implications of Meta's decision here.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I’d best rethink my annual support. Presumably you’d “applaud” me not donating any more?
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

How naive are you lot, my goodness. You oughta be sticking the knife to them, not providing them ammo for plausible deniability as they continue being complicit with fascism. Get off the damn fence.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

i'm going to assume that by "over-censorship problem" you mean the censorship of lgbt people and not the removal of hate speech & aggression, but to me it seems obvious that that isn't what meta is trying to do here. why say they're moving to texas if that's what they're doing? meta is preparing to allow more hate speech on the platform, not to allow more good-faith speech on the platform
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Your post is naive, nothing to applaud, of course it is a political measure to remove barriers for right-wingers and neoliberals so they can spread more falsehoods and hate.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

There you go less censorship
404media.co/facebook-deletes-i…

Meta is a rotten corporation, not a freedom fighting NGO. Everything they do is compromised and what you're signaling by your statement is trust in them? Are you for real?

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

OH, so you applaud being able to associate people's gender identities and sexualities with mental illness?! you applaud being able to make racist statements about chinese people and COVID19 with no consequence?! that's what you applaud?!?!?
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

other people have been more eloquent here, so I wont try to duplicate their reasoning. I'll just go straight to what I am feeling, in my gut. So, to whomever wrote this post:

Take a long walk off a short pier.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I love the optimism, but come on, applauding the change before you've seen the effects?
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

1) This is just an embarrassingly bad take and whoever wrote it should feel embarrassed, and

2) Meta has never had an "over censorship" problem. I have reported blatant racism, transphobia that was well into the territory of incitement to violence, recruitment fraud, ads for illegal drugs, smuggled cigarettes, and academic cheating services, medical advice that would kill people if they followed it, etc. etc. NOTHING has EVER been taken down. Only thing they ever take down is boobs.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Don't expect a good outcome from any of this. Companies like Meta aren't doing this because they think it's a good or the right thing to do. Zuckerberg and Meta are absolutely horrible and along with Musk (and other billionaires), would crush human life if it meant making more money. The default should be to NOT trust these terrible people.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

You already saw Musk do the same things with Twitter and this is what you have to say?
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

well, if you're applying this paucity of reasoning here, I certainly can't trust you to exercise good judgement with donations, so I guess I'd better contribute to a wiser organization ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

this is the most insane, preemptive boot-licking, pro-fascist shit you could have possibly said. And exactly why I tell everybody who will listen to NOT donate to you, ensure their employer DOES NOT donate or support you, and treat you like the fascist-supporting org you have truly become.

Here's a free hint: Meta wasn't 'over-censoring,' or doing anywhere near enough, and you're just cheerleading for violent racism and disinformation.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

This is a bad look. You’re familiar with Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football?

What in Facebook’s history would lead you to think there’s good faith to be had.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Great article, but it's slightly too optimistic. You're still trying to find some 'good' left in Meta, even if there might be very little left.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

You just lost $103 a month from this queer animal.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

this is an insanely bad take, if you're not sure they're acting in bad faith now I think you'll tolerate anything they do forever.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I love y'all. I’ve donated for ages both formally and throwing cash to your booths at various cons. I'm a fan and proud member.

But WTF. No. I can't think of a plausible way to describe Meta as "over-moderated”, nor can I think of a realistic scenario where they’ll actually do this in good faith.

If they want to earn a good reputation, they can begin by starting to act civilly for the first time ever. If that happens, and they keep it up for a few years, *maybe* then I’ll believe it.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

This is abominable anti-human bootlicking garbage and the entire EFF should be deeply ashamed.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

This is giving cover to fascists. It's not a good faith effort and that's obvious to everyone.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I'm looking forward to see ISIS and Hamas content being shared freely on their platform. Because if you're going to claim to be 'politically neutral', you better be politically neutral.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

moving their moderation team into a jurisdiction that intentionally endangers the lives of cis women and all trans people warrants condemnation, not applause
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

The post has a disclaimer which makes this toot misleading and out of date. Leaving it online is not appropriate
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Did someone hack you accounts? I've been following you for years and I find it hard to believe that this comes from you.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

"We applaud Meta's effort" what, and i mean this sincerely, the fuck? you're either embarassingly naive in your take, or you're preemptively kissing the ring of fascism already
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Meta literally responsible for a genocide and you’re giving benefit of the doubt. Your motives are highly suspect.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

over-censorship? They are their own victims. They put items like climate change and green energy down as contentious topics not to be promoted, despite the scientific truth being very clear. All done to appease loud angry people crying for false balance. This is just more of the same
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

This is beyond embarrassing. Literally zero critical thought put into this announcement. A good time to cancel my recurring donation.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

@Kurt Is everything alright at your side? Are your servers hacked?
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Interesting to see that a privacy organization praises the people who destruct privacy. Is this fake or do you prepare to also get money from the new administration? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom for harassment!
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Well, your applause sounds incredibly naive. So is the EFF positioning themselves for the new administration as well?
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

You're a smart bunch. You know this is not a good-faith effort. We don't have to pretend it is.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

You're saluting Meta for encouraging and monetizing hate speech and oppressing critics of American fascists posing as conservatives and libertarians. Are you that naive about the intention of the Zuckerberg, Musk, Thiel, Trump, the GOP, etc ?
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

it's obviously a political maneuver and they're specifically saying they now allow calls for domestic violence. Meanwhile they passed another policy which explicitly prohibiting criticisms of the company itself or its billionaire executives. Yeah they're clearly all about the free speech, huh? What the actual fuck is wrong with the EFF that you are *celebrating* these petty tyrants??
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I don’t think an explicit carve-out allowing bullying and harassment of queer and trans people under the guise of “mental illness” is a good-faith effort of any sort, but go off.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

theonion.com/why-do-all-these-…
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

if you're buying this shit I have a bridge to sell you, too

god

the wide-eyed naivety of this statement

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Don't give money to people who support Nazis and Transphobic content like @eff. Find someone on the Fedi who needs a hand. Don't reward this
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

making specific carve outs so queer people can be harassed but others can't is fixing an over-censorship problem now? for real? you can't possibly be this gullible
in reply to Eniko Fox

@eniko well they also sided with kiwifarms comparing actions against it to censorship... that (and their pro-crypto stance) made me stop donating to them.
in reply to Bernie the Wordsmith

@berniethewordsmith @eniko they went with the slippery slope argument, if we allow a service provider to deplatform actual nazis who have actually led people to their deaths what will be next? eff.org/deeplinks/2022/10/inte…
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

It seems to me that the far right and their big-tech lackeys have been using "free speech" as a fig leaf for their borderline-fascistic policies for years now, and the idea that an organization with the explicit goal of fighting harmful censorship is somehow not wise to this already is baffling to me. How on earth do you expect to accomplish anything, or be taken at all seriously, if you fall for this kind of obvious bullshit?
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

This absolute shitpile -- and similar; this is not the first time you've screwed the pooch this way -- is why I no longer support you financially.

You know why this is fucked up. Shame on you, and fix your hearts.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

what possible can go wrong if a company profiting from emotional engagement is asking for emotional escalation.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Update: After this blog post was written, we learned Meta revised its public "Hateful Conduct" policy in ways EFF finds concerning. We are analyzing these changes, which this blog post does not address.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

So

You didn't do your homework and blew it completely

And now you're trying to cover your *ss

Not buying it

Not buying it for one second

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

update: Facebook has always been rammed full of hateful conduct regardless of whatever they've ever written in any sort of "policy", sweetie x
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

maybe next time ask literally any internet savvy marginalized person before you write in your fucking blog

BashStKid reshared this.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

when have y'all ever found bigotry concerning? When people united to put public pressure on to drop protection from hateful sites like KiwiFarms, and they succeeded, you wrung your hands about it, and later that year created a "Protect The Stack" site. And then the year after that, an ISP dropped them for violating their Acceptable Use Policy and Corynne McSherry (who oh-so-bravely wrote anonymously) wrote about how it was concerning and we need to keep Protecting Bigots Free Speech- I mean "The Stack". eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps…
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

maybe take a minute and read it, especially from a company that has spent decades being awful, before writing how great it is.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

yeaaaa yall this is not aging well, hate speech inciting harm against vulnerable groups is an exception.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

analyze this change while you're at it: i am switching to privacy possum. i don't trust privacy software maintained by facebook sycophants.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

congratulations on shooting yourself in the foot and loosing so many supporters by defending this. This is so disappointing.
This entry was edited (6 days ago)
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

good lord, it’s only January 9th and you dumb fucks have already achieved the worst take of the year. That one’s going to take some beating.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

So, when's the post-mortem coming out about how your org missed the mark by so much here? As a supporter, I'd really like to know the thought process that brought you to this point.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

so who decided it was smart to endorse without reading, if that's really what happened here? do you OFTEN endorse shit without reading it? as an organization, is that how you want us to believe you operate? And you think this makes you look BETTER, not just as bad, maybe even worse?
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

no surprises coming from the same people who tried to whitewash and defend kiwifarms. y'all just a bunch of creeps, like the Zuck and the Musk.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

i cannot believe that in the year 2025, you actually let someone basically write a 'no actually, we should hear the Nazis out, they might have good ideas' article.

You're fucking idiots if you think that granting such largess to demonstrably bad faith actors is going anywhere good.

You *do not* tolerate intolerance.
It's a social pact we make to tolerate others to ensure a peaceful society.

Break the pact, prepare to get whacked.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

You, as an org, need to do some SERIOUS self-examination, taking the words of the marginalized well into account. Deeply shameful.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

This entry was edited (6 days ago)
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Imma be real, I expect more reading comprehension for an org of your size an importance. You really took your mask off for this one. Especially by leaving the original post up.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

you fucking idiots saw Zuck making an announcement full of blatant dogwhistles and decided to fucking cheer on him. Then went "whoops, we didn't expect this" when the obvious thing happened.

The only thing you can do to regain any reputation is to delete your post IMMEDIATELY and fucking write an apology explaining how you could possibly fuck up so much.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Yeah, no, wholly inadequate.

I don't see an apology here to all the people (myself included) you just threw under the hate bus.

We deserve one. An ABJECT one. Y'all seriously screwed the pooch. Own it and apologize.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

took no time to praise Meta and now taking a long time to decide that homophobia, racism and sexism might be bad, got to think more about it
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I'm reminded of that time you bankrolled the legal defense of a jackass who'd harassed friends of mine

they were queer

I stopped donating at that point

you've been like this for a while

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

By the time we shared this statement, the conversation had understandably shifted toward Meta's dangerous new content policy. It was a mistake to project good faith onto the company, which quickly showed it was not deserving of it. For a full analysis, see eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/meta…
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

The projecting good faith isn't shattered due to the lack of content policy being what it was. It concerns data privacy in general. EFF ought to know this better than most.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

it was a mistake to project good faith onto the company in this the year 2025?

8 years after the Rohingya genocide? You still gave them the benefit of the doubt?

Is there any kind of internal self-evaluation happening at the organization or even in your own heads asking yourselves why you made such a poor choice? In, and I cannot stress this enough…. 2025?

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Is this it? This isn't an apology, and people you initially would let Meta throw under the bus deserve one. I suggest another post in which you properly address your *own* failures, instead of doing so in passing then moving on to Meta's.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Of course it was a mistake to project good faith onto Meta. The fact this wasn’t obvious to you in the first place is depressing. Can we trust the analysis of an organization that is so out of touch?
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I have tried to encourage people to leave Meta - so far with poor results. The way they make money with people's vulnerability and increase polarization of the society is just not right.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

you're flogging a dead horse by pointing out "oh yeah Meta is still bad actually oops" and suggesting what they must/should/could do as if they will ever in our lifetimes do it beyond protecting their bottom line and reputation in the press with performative and empty gestures.
Stop wasting your energy with this, apologise fully and meaningfully for your repeated naivety and trust for Meta and finally encourage its abandonment and suffocation while elevating its community owned alternatives
in reply to Shrig 🐌

this additional blog post only reads like fluff to try and stop the flow of your hemorrhaging donors. No shit Meta is bad 🙄
in reply to Shrig 🐌

@Shrigglepuss

"Over -censored" is a funny way to refer to fb's systemic queerphobia.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I think the reason meta is doing this is that they are finally realizing that their content moderation is not actually representative of what their users actually want and that they feel threatened by alt tech sites like minds, mastodon, Bluesky, gab, Parler, truth, Gettr, rumble, peertube and others. Note that their new policy doesn't go as far in either direction as other alt tech sites because they are probably taking a middle of the road approach. I agree with what meta is doing here because I am skeptical of unlimited corporate power over what we do, read, buy, eat and think. I think it is sad that people are so used to corporations controlling what you get to read, write, think, eat and buy that they feel scared that the corporations realize this isn't sustainable. That said I do not trust meta and will never use their platforms. I do not think meta is fully being sincere about their mistakes or that they are changing for the better.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

no shit "it was a mistake to project good faith onto Meta", where you living under a rock this last decade?

I cannot believe I donated to your org at some point, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Y'all will do or say anything to avoid OWNING YOUR SHIT, won't you?

Own. Your. Shit.

You've been simping for hate for a long time. Figure out how you're going to NOT DO THAT ANY MORE, apologize for doing it at all, and then don't do it again.

You get not one penny and not one word of praise from me until you fix your hearts and your practices.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

::slow, grim chuckle::

Libertarians love to pretend big corporations are good, actually.

So easily conned.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

You applaud Zuck's transparent efforts to kiss Trump's ass? Really? How embarrassing for you.
"We sincerely hope that the lightened restrictions announced by Meta will apply uniformly, and not just to hot-button U.S. political topics"
LMAO, you can't be *that* gullible

"Censorship, broadly, is not the answer to misinformation"
Ah right, so Facebook could have avoided its role in the Rohingya genocide by… I dunno, community notes saying "some people think massacres are bad, actually"? 🤔

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Welcome to the inadvertent censorship represented by gagging oneself with the bulk of one's own foot.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

so how much did Zuckerberg pay you to pen this bootlicking puff piece?

Just go ahead and change your user avatar to Pepe the frog like the rest of the "Free Speech (specifically and only for Nazis)" brigade.

in reply to Tattie

@Tattie Clarification request: did you toot your reply before EFF added a timestamp-less "Update: After this blog post was published (addressing Meta's blog post here), we learned Meta also revised its public "Hateful Conduct" policy in ways EFF finds concerning. We are analyzing these changes, which this blog post does not address, and will provide an update soon." at the top? (To be clear, I agree Meta's "attacking someone's mental health is only OK if they're gay/trans" change is loathsome.)
in reply to Pau Amma

this was a reply to the now-deleted earlier post
This entry was edited (6 days ago)
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

And that's a "who the fuck do you think you're trying to fool" from me.

Moderation isn't censorship, it's enabling a fair playing-field.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

congrats on supporting the fascists, then backpedaling when everyone ratio'd your ass.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

The only organisations that ever have a problem with "over-censorship" are #fascist organisations.

And if and when you applaud fascists, you are one.

#blocked

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

Seriously?

transparency.meta.com/policies…

Section "Tier 2". It's ok to dump on the mental health of gay or trans people?

What is wrong with you?

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

oh come ON. Facebook is nearly TWENTY years old. We have so much ample evidence of their intents and trustworthiness. EFF are usually more savvy than this.

POSIWID: Purpose of a system is what it does. Don’t put scare quotes around “mistakes”. Say flat out why we think this explanation is absurd. They are long past any benefit of any doubt. They now should receive the full weight of doubt. They earned our skepticism year after year, cynical reversal after cynical reversal.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

respectfully, I think that you (the person in charge of this account) perhaps don't quite realize what this actually means, and why we're not happy about it. This isn't a play at making these platforms more transparent or democratized, this is to allow hate speech that financially benefits the platform to spread unimpeded. They now have carte blanch to allow their algorithms to further agitate and misinform their user base into capital H harmful beliefs that can cause physical, material harm to others.

In short, I think calling this a bad take is an understatement. Perhaps... Read the room. You probably would have picked up the general vibe on this subject was extremely negative by the kinds of people who are often aligned with EFF values.

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

The article is in fact not as bad as most people point out. The worst part is the last paragraph, which is also used as intro in this toot. It goes against the rest of the article where the EFF points out censorship against minorities, which should effectively not be done.

Unfortunately, having listened to Mark's ramblings in his 6-minute video, what Meta calls "Free Speech" is mostly "Free Hate". Combining with algorithms which push for more engagement, and the human brain which lusts after controversies and hate, this is just a recipe for disaster.

Anyway, time to write that last message on WhatsApp and ditch my final link with Meta...

in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

wtf is going on in your brains? over-censorship? is this like the superlative of dumb: overdumbestdumbass? no offense, just asking.
@pluralistic whats going on there? maybe the next essay could be about braineating worms? 😡🤯🤢
This entry was edited (6 days ago)
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

I'm sorry to say this, but you sound so incredibly naive that it borders on irresponsibility.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

You've had one day since the original mistaken post, and 18hrs since the poor follow up. Better get posting some retractions or lose what little faith you might still have
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

consider my membership canceled. I supported you in the past regardless of your problematic views around free speech absolutism because you paid lawyers to support things I cared about, such as privacy laws. This I cannot overlook.
in reply to Electronic Frontier Foundation

qoto.org/@olives/1138012482552…
"The EFF's proposed fact checking alternative isn't even that good. Let's suppose someone makes a post debunking an American myth like sex trafficking statistics. A small group of people might decide to "correct" that."