The People vs Homophobia
How will Meta's new policies impact LGBTQ+ folk? 🌈

I used to post about LGBTQ+ Rights on TikTok. But after receiving so much transphobic, homophobic, and racist hate I’ve pretty much stopped using the app. I know countless others who have done the same.
It seems Instagram is heading in the same direction. Updates to the community standards on Meta platforms clearly state what is and is not allowed on their platforms. Spoiler: it isn’t good for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and even worse for trans people. Here’s just a snippet of what they will now allow:

It isn’t like minorities were really that well protected on social media before this new policy update from Meta. Content moderation or not, time and time again Big Tech algorithms have been shown to push out misogynistic, far-right, and homophobic content. More hateful and extreme content means more clicks, which means more advertising dollars in the Tech Bros’ pockets.
But my fear now is that Meta’s new policies will further normalise anti-LGBTQ+ misinformation and hate, and result in people self-censoring or leaving online spaces altogether. And it’s no secret that violence online is interconnected with human behaviour IRL.
I am Shiv, a journalist and community organiser from London. And ironically, People vs Big Tech’s social media manager. My pronouns are they/them and my skin colour is brown. As a chronically online person often found deep in the comment section, I am all too aware of the darker side of social media.
When I see hateful content, I report it to the platforms, even though I am well used to the response “We have found no violation of community standards.”
Forget the fact that if someone were to say these words to me in the street where I live, they would be in violation of a Section 4 Public Order Offence. I know, because a neighbour of mine recently decided to use racist slurs about me. Presumably, emboldened to do so by the normalisation of far right rhetoric, and what he has seen online.
Big Tech 'Pride' 🌈
Meta has humble and misogynistic roots. It began with a young man in a college dorm building a website to rate women. Facebook then developed into a Goliath-like company, Meta, absorbing Instagram and WhatsApp, resulting in 77% of all internet users being active on at least one Meta platform.

As the company grew Meta at least pretended to care about LGBTQ+ rights. June would come around every year and hashtags would appear in rainbow colours, stickers would adorn words like 'ally' and 'proud', and Pride events would be adored with garish Big Tech-related logos. Amazon too has celebrated Pride for their staff network and sponsored LGBTQ+ events, and even Elon Musk has previously shown support for the LGBTQ+ community.
But pinkwashing – the practice where companies claim to be LGBT-friendly in order to make a profit – doesn’t seem to be in vogue any more.
Following Trump’s electoral win, Amazon removed statements pledging to commit to “equity for Black people” and “LGBTQ+ rights,” as well as any mention of “transgender” from its website. The retail giant also joined Meta in rolling back its diversity (DEI) initiatives.
Funnily enough, this is in line with the new President’s plan to do the same for government hires – which is being carried out as we speak by Trump’s Tech-Bro-In-Chief Elon Musk and Head of the Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE, sigh):

Meta has even made changes to its private messenger function, which now no longer allows users to choose “Trans” and “Non-Binary” themes. Of course, this isn’t as big a deal as the company allowing anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech on their platforms or removing diversity initiatives, but it does symbolise how extensive this ideological shift seems to be.
I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg has scrolled on Reels too long and become radicalised by his own platform? Lol jk, while we know social media has a habit of sending people down extremist rabbit holes, Zuck has admitted he doesn’t really use social media the way you and I do, and he certainly doesn’t let his kids on it, dare they fall prey to his own addictive design.
More likely then, is that Big Tech’s pinkwashing really was just pinkwashing. These companies are interested in profit, and minimal regulation of how they get that profit.
If they have to throw LGBTQ+ people under the bus to get there, so what?

Impact across the pond
With Trump’s executive orders targeting trans people, and a constitution which does not allow hate speech to be regulated, the US is undoubtedly a terrifying place to be LGBTQ+ right now.
Big Tech’s role in this cuts even deeper considering how important social media has been to many in my community seeking to connect with each other, access information and express ourselves, despite shadow banning.
But are things looking any better for those of us across the pond? While Meta's changes have been announced to apply in the US first, content on these global platforms will of course impact social media users around the world.
In the UK, the CEO of LGBTQ+ group Stonewall said that a couple of years ago it would have been “unimaginable” that Meta would allow users to promote conversion practices, which are condemned by the United Nations and soon to be banned in the UK. Meanwhile, the trade union for tech workers here has called on Meta to assure its LGBTQ+ employees here are not disadvantaged by the company’s policy changes.
There could also be some hope that Big Tech regulations could save the day in Europe at least. Meta’s new content moderation policies may be in breach of their duties to prevent and protect social media users from harm under the EU’s Digital Services Act, as well as the UK’s Online Safety Act. Rasha Abdul Rahim, Interim Executive Director of People vs Big Tech told me:
"The EU’s Digital Services Act is clear: platforms must act to curb the risks of illegal content such as incitement to hatred or violence. Big Tech must also reduce the spread of content that may pose a significant risk to human rights, democracy, and public health, especially for vulnerable users."
If Meta’s new policy loosens restrictions in a way that allows such content to spread in the EU, it could violate the DSA, and Meta would need to prove it’s not prioritising so-called free speech at the expense of user safety. And the fact that X’s community notes programme, which Meta is planning to imitate, has been under investigation by the EU Commission does not bode well."
If we start seeing more harmful, illegal content on Meta platforms that breaks EU laws – like hate speech or inciting violence — they could be in serious legal trouble under the Digital Services Act. Regulators have the power to investigate and hit companies with hefty fines of up to 6% of their global revenue for major violations.

Reform of content moderation doesn’t have to be bad news. LGBTQ+ content creators, sex educators and Palestine advocates are among the groups who have long highlighted the censorship of their posts by Big Tech platforms.
But as leading organisation defending civil liberties in the digital world Electronic Frontier Foundation put it, the nature of Meta’s changes reveal that the company is “less interested in freedom of expression as a principle and more focused on appeasing the incoming U.S. administration.”
Actions you can take ✊
👾 Report hate speech, even if it isn’t directed at you, to the platforms and the authorities in your country. In some countries there are specific LGBTQ+ charities who can help, such as Galop in the UK, MGRM in Malta and Hatter in Hungary.
👾 Sign up here to make sure The People gets delivered straight into your inbox for free. We work with journalists, campaigners, and experts to bring you the Big Tech stories they don’t want you to know about, AND we won’t spam you or steal your data.
👾 Sign the Open Letter from Women Against Fascism calling for a risk assessment from the EU about Meta’s updated policy.
👾 Support the Free Our Feeds campaign, a movement working to prevent any single billionaire from controlling all our social media platforms.