Meta’s decision to revamp its approach to online content in early 2025 has ignited internal tensions with its own Oversight Board. The sweeping reforms dismantled third-party fact-checking partnerships in the U.S., eliminated proactive enforcement of less severe violations, and eased restrictions on discussion surrounding immigration and gender identity. These changes came after CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged the company’s previous moderation framework had created “too many mistakes and too much censorship.”
The Oversight Board responded swiftly and critically, accusing Meta of implementing these updates “hastily” and without the transparency necessary for public accountability. Specifically, the board highlighted a lack of evidence that Meta had conducted any “human rights due diligence” prior to the launch of its new system. In particular, the board feared the changes could lead to unequal consequences in crisis-prone regions across the globe.
A key feature of the overhaul is the replacement of third-party fact-checkers with a user-driven Community Notes system—modeled after Elon Musk’s version on X. The intent, according to Meta, is to crowdsource context rather than rely on what critics have often labeled biased or agenda-driven “fact checks.” While this move was praised by advocates of free expression, the board urged Meta to publish biannual assessments of the tool’s effectiveness.
Changes also extended to how Meta enforces “hate speech” policies. The company stopped proactively scanning for certain content deemed less severe, while maintaining enforcement against major violations like terrorist propaganda and child exploitation. Restrictions on speech about gender identity and LGBT issues were also scaled back, allowing more open debate on controversial cultural topics.
The Oversight Board issued 17 formal recommendations in response. These included calls to clarify which ideologies are still banned, improve enforcement against bullying, and assess how the relaxed rules could impact users differently depending on geography and current events. The board also upheld Meta’s decisions in specific cases, such as allowing debates over transgender bathroom access, but reaffirmed the need to remove overtly racist content.
Meta, despite the criticism, reaffirmed its financial commitment to the Oversight Board by extending its funding—$35 million annually through 2027—via an Irrevocable Trust designed to preserve the board’s independence. Co-Chair Paolo Carozza noted that Meta has shown no signs of abandoning its relationship with the board.
The broader picture suggests that Meta, under pressure and amid political change, is realigning its priorities. Zuckerberg’s rollback of legacy content policies marks a shift toward a more open platform—one where user autonomy is prioritized over ideological policing.
