The social media giant Meta made a major announcement last week about its new content moderation policies. The fact-checking programme will be discontinued, beginning with the United States.
Meta’s platforms, which include Facebook Instagram and Threads, will no longer use human fact-checkers or moderation teams. Instead, they will rely on a model of “community notes”,, sourced by users. This is similar to the current method of content moderation at X (formerly Twitter).
Meta’s hateful behavior policy was also altered last week in order to allow for more “free expression”. Experts and advocacy groups warn that this could lead to an increase in abusive and demeaning remarks about Indigenous People, migrants and refugees, women, and LGBTQIA+ individuals.
experts are also concerned about the spread of misinformation and disinformation on Meta platforms.
especially in relation to the COVID, health content has been at the forefront of concerns about online misinformation. Meta’s new policy on online sexual and reproductive health information has received less attention, but it could have a profound impact.
Health information in a ‘town square
Since the COVID epidemic, online platforms are becoming more important to sexual and reproductive health organizations.
Social media allows organisations like Family Planning Australia to easily and affordably share information about sensitive public health issues, such as unplanned pregnancy, HIV, and other topics.
Meta’s platforms can be used for good or bad, as they are spaces that allow public health information to reach a wide range of audiences. It is especially useful for those in rural or regional areas, youth, and people who are not connected to reliable health services.
Facebook and Instagram are “town squares” that many health care providers use. What happens, however, when those who are most in need of sexual health or contraception information no longer feel comfortable in the town square?
Meta claims that community notes will come from multiple sources in order to avoid bias. Some online sex educators initially believed that the new policy would make it easier for people to share content related to sexual and reproductive health.
Leaked training materials from Meta show that statements like “gays and freaks” or transgender people being mentally ill are now acceptable. It would be dangerous for both users and healthcare providers to share information online.
Targeted attacks and too much censorship
Meta’s Oversight Board acknowledged in the past that it had over-censored nudity, gender and sexuality content. The result has been that sexual and reproductive health content has been blocked or “shadow banned”.
Crowd-sourcing replaces moderators. Information is collected from multiple users who hold a variety of political opinions. The note flags misinformation. Meta is recruiting users for the US Community Notes rollout on Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
Investigations of the system on X show that notes are added often hours after false and misleading content has already been viral .
The process can also be weaponised. Researchers have found that users who are politically motivated already manipulate community guidelines on Instagram and TikTok to attack creators of content.
It includes attacks against women’s health organizations and LGBTQIA+ groups as part of a ” anti rights pushback“. Government and non-government organisations have launched campaigns around the world to oppose both reproductive freedom and rights for trans people.
False reporting of images as violating community guidelines is one example of a malicious tactic. It can also be a coordinated swarm of hate speech under a post on social media.
These social manipulation affect women, transgender people, and other LGBTQIA+ individuals disproportionately. Self-censoring Health Information and removing themselves from platforms on social media are ways that sexual and reproductive health content producers have responded.
What next?
Many LGBTQIA+ organisations and women’s healthcare organisations have already closed their X accounts .
Meta is also losing users who use health services. Some health outreach organisations encourage community members to stay in touch via private newsletters and mailing lists .
Not everyone feels comfortable with sharing their email. Social media offers privacy and anonymity to vulnerable people.
There is no perfect answer. Users of social media are exploring new platforms , such as Bluesky. Sexual and reproductive health providers must also be willing to experiment with new platforms.
It may be difficult for organisations who have invested time and resources in health promotion through Meta platforms. In a rapidly changing global political climate, doing business as usual will not work.
Kath Albury is funded by the Australian Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. She previously received funding through the Office of the eSafety Commissioner.
Joanna Williams has received funding through the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship (RTP).
