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.
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?