> Has The Guardian confirmed the facts either way? Or are they just reporting what people say without digging deeper?
This reads like what you’re accusing them of doing. The way you’re asking the questions communicates skepticism in favor of facebook’s official statement. Facebook’s track record on policing content is not exactly one that inspires confidence in their narrative.
The Guardian has a duty and responsibility to not create false narratives or misinformation.
I am entitled to a dose of healthy skepticism.
If I believed that Meta is suspending accounts for the mere fact that they link to abortion information or non-pornographic queer content, rather some other policy reason, then I WOULD dig deeper because apparently The Gaurdian can’t be bothered to.
However, I don’t believe that to be the case by the mere fact that there are millions of accounts active that DO link to queer content or abortion information.
I would assume some good faith on their part. Verification would be valuable, but so would timely release of information. If the reports are true, an active harm to those organizations are being done, and it would be valuable for the public to know sooner than later. If you attempt to verify the information, but it's taking more time and resources than you have to do the job quickly, releasing the information with attribution to a reputable source is the least harmful option.
> but so would timely release of information. If the reports are true, an active harm to those organizations are being done, and it would be valuable for the public to know sooner than later.
I do not believe that that is The Guardian’s goal with this reporting. If it were, wouldn’t it make more sense to list the organizations (provide actionable information), rather than spending time telling a story?
I also have a hard time seeing the harm or the size thereof without knowing more context about any of the organizations, what they do, and how much they rely or depend on Facebook to be effective.
If I were an organization that had my Facebook account suspended unfairly or unjustly, I would simply find a different way to stay in touch with others. Meta does not owe me anything
Nobody is claiming that Facebook is shutting down all accounts posting abortion info and queer content. The fact that some high-profile accounts are still online doesn't in any way invalidate the possibility that it is shutting down smaller accounts at an increased rate.
The Guardian article interviews several people whose accounts have been shut down. Are you proposing that all those people are lying, or is there perhaps the possibility of Facebook not telling the whole truth? Should you not be skeptical of Facebook's "we didn't do anything" claim as well?
What matters is the reason for them being shuttered.
I totally believe that those accounts have been shut down (without checking even one), but I do not buy that it is for the mere fact that they link to abortion info or queer content which is the framing in the article and a lot of the assumption in this discussion thread, because the counter evidence is clear and voluminous.
I get that people are passionate about topics that are important to them, but I will also say that one ought to keep a level head, even if only for one’s one emotional resilience.
I also accept that people need to vent (against corporations, rich people, government, etc.) and I try to give people the space to do so even when I think they’re wrong. At the same time, I think what is more helpful is to lean in with curiosity and not to assume you’re right.
Imagine you are a media outlet. How exactly would you verify the claim if everything you have is a link to suspended account and testimony of account owner (and Meta doesn't want to comment on details)?
To steelman the opposing view, sources from inside the company might hold a little more water.
But that's just a steelman. If I were to guess as to what is actually going on, I would suspect that it's due some sort of automated reporting system that has been successfully gamified in the case of smaller content creators, and there's simply no human oversight of these features.
That said, IMHO trying to tease out if Meta is banning these accounts out of maliciousness or depraved indifference is a distinction without a difference. At the end of the day, the buck still stops with Meta.
>What matters is the reason for them being shuttered.
So they should explain the situation rather than dropping a generic “our policies are great and this is fine.” We’ve seen them be inconsistent in their enforcement time and time again and with Zuckerberg openly kissing the Trump admin’s ring as he once again shifts course with the political winds, some of us (rightfully) think it is likely Facebook, not The Guardian, that is wrong here. Yes we need more clarification from both parties but my money is on TG.
Your skepticism is warranted but it is misdirected IMO.
This reads like what you’re accusing them of doing. The way you’re asking the questions communicates skepticism in favor of facebook’s official statement. Facebook’s track record on policing content is not exactly one that inspires confidence in their narrative.