Meta’s Orwellian “Oversight Board” has rebuked the company for having loosened its moderation and “hate speech” rules back in January.
In an assessment published Wednesday, the independently operated board complained that the change was implemented too “hastily.”
“Meta’s January 7, 2025, policy and enforcement changes were announced hastily, in a departure from regular procedure, with no public information shared as to what, if any, prior human rights due diligence the company performed,” the assessment reads.
The Board further whined about the “potential adverse effects” of the change on so-called “vulnerable” groups like the LGBT community.
We are calling on Meta to:
• Assess the human rights impact of the Hateful Conduct policy updates on populations in Global Majority countries, LGBTQIA+ people, including minors, and immigrants. Meta should update the Board every six months and report on this publicly soon.
— Oversight Board (@OversightBoard) April 23, 2025
“As the changes are being rolled out globally, the Board emphasizes it is now essential that Meta identifies and addresses adverse impacts on human rights that may result from them,” the assessment continues.
Under the current rules, users are reportedly allowed to accuse LGBT individuals of being mentally ill.
The assessment was published after Meta reviewed 11 separate cases of content moderation to see if its policies are working.
“In two U.S. cases involving videos of transgender women on Facebook and Instagram, the Board upheld Meta’s decision to leave the content up, despite user reports,” according to TechCrunch.
However, the Board did overturn the company’s decision to leave up three Facebook posts that contained so-called “anti-Muslim” and “anti-immigrant” content.
The Board also issued 17 recommendations, including that Facebook’s community notes system be improved, that Meta clarify its stance on so-called “hateful” ideologies, and that Meta uphold its commitment to what are known as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
The Board’s assessment comes two months after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the layoffs Monday of 3,600 “low-performing” employees.
News that Zuckerberg would be laying off roughly five percent of his employees first came in an internal memo he published a month prior in January.
“I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low performers faster,” he wrote. “We typically manage out people who aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we’re going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle.”
Meta $META is looking to do some trimming.
According to an internal memo, Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to lay off 5% of employees, targeting underperformers.
With 72,400 employees as of last quarter, this translates to about 3,620 layoffs. pic.twitter.com/ZIXGVK5zsj
— Carbon Finance (@carbonfinancex) January 15, 2025
But when the ax came Monday, it came as a surprise to many now-disgruntled former Meta employees like Kaila Curry, who subsequently posted a screed to LinkedIn complaining about her termination.
“This wasn’t about performance; it was about workforce reduction in favor of AI initiatives,” she bitterly claimed in her post.
She went on to allege that her performance at Meta had been exemplary.
“I managed weekend content operations, received an ‘exceeds expectations’ rating in my mid-year review, and navigated a whirlwind of five managers and two reorgs in just one year,” she wrote.
“I frequently asked for feedback and was always told I was doing a good job. I was never placed on a PIP, never given corrective feedback, and never properly mentored or provided clear expectations. I simply put in the work—often on weekends—while being isolated in an empty office,” she added.
Disgruntled and vocal: Zuckerberg follows DOGE, 3,600 ‘low performing’ Meta workers get the axe https://t.co/IivdXT6Z64
— BPR (@BIZPACReview) February 12, 2025
Steven S., another laid-off Meta employee, also took to LinkedIn to complain about his termination. Like Curry, he claimed he wasn’t a low-performing employee.
“I was let go today—but not because I was a ‘Low Performer,’” he wrote. “If you’ve seen the headlines, you’ve probably also seen how leadership is framing this: a move to ‘raise the bar’ by cutting so-called ‘low performers.’ Let’s be clear: that label is misleading, and for many of us, it’s flat-out wrong.”
“I worked hard this past year. I contributed, collaborated, and did my best to push my team and our work forward. And yet, like thousands of others, I was swept up in a process that had more to do with hitting numbers than fairly evaluating individual performance,” he added.
He went on to claim that the layoffs had nothing to do with performance.
“Layoffs like this aren’t about who deserves to stay—they’re about business decisions made at a high level, often with little regard for the talent being lost,” he wrote. “Not to mention, the overall physical, mental, and emotional well-being of the humans impacted by these decisions.”
“So, to everyone affected today: that ‘low performer’ label does not define you. Your skills, work ethic, and potential are still intact. This is a setback, but it’s not the end of your story,” he added.
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
V. Saxena is a staff writer with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University. Saxena also contributes to BizPac Review.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.