Meta shuts down global accounts linked to abortion advice and queer content

Corporate motives and morality

• Many see Meta’s crackdown as consistent with large public corporations: amoral entities optimized for profit, power, and stock price, not social good.
• Some argue such firms are effectively “enemies” when they materially worsen people’s lives, especially marginalized groups.
• Others push back: corporations are not moral agents, just businesses trying to survive; employees are varied individuals and should not automatically be vilified.
• Discussion of cognitive dissonance and “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it” as an explanatory frame.
• Several commenters describe executive culture as disproportionately sociopathic or narcissistic, with decision-making intentionally diffused to avoid personal guilt.

Impact and meaning of queer/abortion censorship

• Queer commenters describe platform-level suppression as a form of erasure: loss of visibility in a major “public square,” undermining community, safety, and even mental health.
• Others downplay this as non‑existential: Meta is not obligated to host any content; people can move to alternative apps.
• Counterargument: network effects and Meta’s dominance (especially WhatsApp/Instagram) make “just move” unrealistic and drift toward “separate but equal.”
• There’s debate over whether Meta’s stated justifications (non‑explicit nudity, “prescription drugs,” “human exploitation”) are genuine safety policies or ideological pretexts.

Evidence, media, and trust

• Some criticize the article as cherry‑picking activist claims, lacking detail on specific policy violations; they point to prominent abortion/queer accounts still online.
• Others argue volume and pattern (NGO tracking, repeated incidents, prior history with LGBT content) make Meta’s blanket denials untrustworthy.
• Meta’s “same rules for everyone” defense is likened to formally equal but substantively discriminatory rules (e.g., anti–gay‑marriage framing).

Free speech, moderation, and hypocrisy

• A recurrent theme: those who welcomed platform censorship of right‑wing/Covid content now face the same tools deployed against causes they favor.
• One camp calls for near‑absolute speech tolerance on private platforms, warning that any opinion‑based censorship will inevitably be weaponized by opponents.
• Another camp distinguishes harmful conduct (harassment, incitement, dangerous medical lies) from self‑description and community support, arguing for strong moderation of the former and protection of the latter.
• The “paradox of tolerance” and First Amendment limits vs. private editorial control are heavily debated.

Power, politics, and alternatives

• Commenters see Meta aligning with the current US right‑wing mood and religious conservatism, similar to historical state–corporate convergences in authoritarian directions.
• Broader disillusionment with tech mottos (“don’t be evil,” “open and connected”) reinforces the view that corporate “values” are purely instrumental.
• Alternatives like Discord, Nostr, Signal, and the fediverse are discussed; network effects and non‑technical user bases are seen as major barriers to meaningful exit.