Casey Newton

Now, I would also say they specifically carved out exceptions to their hate speech policy, seemingly specifically to appease Republicans when it comes to LGBT people and immigrants, but that is a different thread in the story. So tell me, what are these carve outs? So Meta communicates its policies in two ways. One, there is a public set of guidelines, which tend to be fairly high level.

And then there is a second secret set of guidelines that are distributed to the Meta employees and contractors who actually have to enforce those guidelines when they're looking at posts.

And then there is a second secret set of guidelines that are distributed to the Meta employees and contractors who actually have to enforce those guidelines when they're looking at posts.

And then there is a second secret set of guidelines that are distributed to the Meta employees and contractors who actually have to enforce those guidelines when they're looking at posts.

That's right. And last week, a great publication called Platformer published some of these guidelines, PJ. I happened to get ahold of some of them. And I was really struck by these guidelines that were given to moderators on the question, do insults about mental illness and abnormality violate when targeting people on the basis of gender or sexual orientation? So in the past,

That's right. And last week, a great publication called Platformer published some of these guidelines, PJ. I happened to get ahold of some of them. And I was really struck by these guidelines that were given to moderators on the question, do insults about mental illness and abnormality violate when targeting people on the basis of gender or sexual orientation? So in the past,

That's right. And last week, a great publication called Platformer published some of these guidelines, PJ. I happened to get ahold of some of them. And I was really struck by these guidelines that were given to moderators on the question, do insults about mental illness and abnormality violate when targeting people on the basis of gender or sexual orientation? So in the past,

you could not say, for example, gay people are insane. PJ, today you can say that gay people are insane, which is something that typically I only approve of when gay people are saying to each other at brunch. But now it's anything goes.

you could not say, for example, gay people are insane. PJ, today you can say that gay people are insane, which is something that typically I only approve of when gay people are saying to each other at brunch. But now it's anything goes.

you could not say, for example, gay people are insane. PJ, today you can say that gay people are insane, which is something that typically I only approve of when gay people are saying to each other at brunch. But now it's anything goes.

The justification is that this is now just part of what Meta calls the mainstream discourse, which is essentially whether you view these... statements as harmful or not, and I view them as harmful, Mehta would say, well, it's being debated on the floor of Congress, and there should not be anything that can be debated on the floor of Congress that could not be debated on our properties as well.

The justification is that this is now just part of what Meta calls the mainstream discourse, which is essentially whether you view these... statements as harmful or not, and I view them as harmful, Mehta would say, well, it's being debated on the floor of Congress, and there should not be anything that can be debated on the floor of Congress that could not be debated on our properties as well.

The justification is that this is now just part of what Meta calls the mainstream discourse, which is essentially whether you view these... statements as harmful or not, and I view them as harmful, Mehta would say, well, it's being debated on the floor of Congress, and there should not be anything that can be debated on the floor of Congress that could not be debated on our properties as well.

That sounds like a really savvy point, but then you realize that there is actually a law in Congress that enables members of Congress to say literally anything with no legal consequence. The floor of Congress is the single most protected speech zone in the entire United States. Wait, really? What does that mean? I have to look that up, too. Mike Masnick wrote a great post about it at TechDirt.

That sounds like a really savvy point, but then you realize that there is actually a law in Congress that enables members of Congress to say literally anything with no legal consequence. The floor of Congress is the single most protected speech zone in the entire United States. Wait, really? What does that mean? I have to look that up, too. Mike Masnick wrote a great post about it at TechDirt.

That sounds like a really savvy point, but then you realize that there is actually a law in Congress that enables members of Congress to say literally anything with no legal consequence. The floor of Congress is the single most protected speech zone in the entire United States. Wait, really? What does that mean? I have to look that up, too. Mike Masnick wrote a great post about it at TechDirt.

But for example, the big one is like you can slander your political rivals. So you could say, you know, pick your congressman. You know, you could accuse them of like a heinous crime and you could not be held liable for that. Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah. Yeah.

But for example, the big one is like you can slander your political rivals. So you could say, you know, pick your congressman. You know, you could accuse them of like a heinous crime and you could not be held liable for that. Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah. Yeah.

But for example, the big one is like you can slander your political rivals. So you could say, you know, pick your congressman. You know, you could accuse them of like a heinous crime and you could not be held liable for that. Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah. Yeah.

So anyway, my point is just Congress, maybe not the best example of where we want to set our speech rules because truly anything goes there. But, you know, the truly most alarming part of these new guidelines to me was in these new guidelines, Metta says you are allowed to say a trans woman isn't a woman, it's a pathetic, confused man, or a trans person isn't a he or she, it's an it.