Instagram and Facebook Blocked and Hid Abortion Pill Providers' Posts
187 comments
·January 31, 2025ziddoap
gtirloni
Double speak from people in power, as usual.
cdme
They don’t want free speech, they want a captive audience to harass.
reverendsteveii
Every time conservatives win a victory for freedom the total number of things you're actually capable of doing goes down.
WeylandYutani
[flagged]
roughly
I.. think that's literally the first amendment, the first Right in the Bill.
margalabargala
You're parsing the meaning from his sentence wrong.
Clearly, when he said "I vow to loosen restrictions on online speech", what he actually meant was "I vow to loosen [the circle of people who get to set] restrictions on online speech".
Obviously.
/s
srameshc
At this point Meta doesn't even worry about these news and specially right now that it is trying to please the current adminstration. Over the years I see it got a lot of bad press but they continue to grow their revenue. Investors are happy, nothing else matters probably for the company .
ziddoap
>At this point Meta doesn't even worry about these news
At this point?
Over the last decade, they've had like a dozen major scandals (hundreds of millions of passwords in plaintext, cambridge analytica, etc.).
They've never worried.
vasco
Cambridge Analytica resulted in them largely closing off their API which depending on your view on platform monetization vs moat of less easily accessible social graph was a bullish thing for the company. It was quite a manufactured scandal in my opinion.
kyledrake
It was an API for making apps with Facebook integration, and after they closed it down, Facebook became even more of a walled garden. Perhaps no criticism of Facebook has ever been more trumped up, and it shut down a lot of people making useful, fun, interesting Facebook apps who were afterwards locked out of the platform. Facebook was probably all too happy to remove the functionality and use this as the excuse to do it.
Anyone that remembers the Graffiti Wall knows the real thing that was lost here. It had it's issues (Farmville was the worst / most annoying version of Harvest Moon ever made) but it was worth saving.
It was also worth building the infrastructure required to make it function, because it ultimately damaged Facebook in ways I don't think they really still understand. Their abortive attempt to build a metaverse or a Twitter that feels more like a prison, vs successful, beautiful, creative, wild interpretations of a metaverse that lead to things like Minecraft and Bluesky. They simply won't succeed a these endeavors without meaningful third party access. Improving upon that problem might be a more productive use of their time than kissing political butts if they want to actually succeed in this space.
tokioyoyo
They just learned, like every single company, that nobody has willpower, ability or memory to keep up with the news. Wait a week or two, say nothing, people will forget. The product is intrenched enough in the society that nobody will move unless something happens to the product itself.
Frankly, can’t really judge them. That is probably the optimal thing to do in the current business environment.
Marsymars
I don't think "keeping up with the news" is really the problem. The problem is that "the news" is primarily about entertainment, not information, and so it isn't actionable. If you care about being informed about actionable information, then your good sources of information are RSS, long-form articles, books, etc.
spencerflem
People keeping up with the news doesn't do much either when our lawmakers are bought and paid for.
And yes its the right "business move" but I have plenty of hate left in my heart for buisnessmen.
tclancy
Eh, you can still judge them.
JKCalhoun
Well, just deleted my Instagram account after this latest bullshit. Maybe it just has to reach a tipping point.
(Yeah, deleted FB almost a decade ago. I had tried to convince myself Instagram was different somehow.)
hammock
I wonder if this has always been true
trhway
[flagged]
afavour
> the Biden admin forced him to censor Covid info
No, he said they “pressured” him. Important difference. The choice was still ultimately his, which he now says he regrets.
lesuorac
I mean he also said in the same interview that after he pushed back against Biden, Biden opened an anti-trust lawsuit against Meta.
However, the anti-trust lawsuit was filed in the 1st Trump administration. So, I don't really think you can take anything Zuck says outside of a shareholder meeting at face value (where he has an actual penalty for lieing).
1oooqooq
more likely they paid for this to be printed.
devindotcom
paid the new york times for a critical article with a triple byline?
1oooqooq
yes because the opinion of voters who care about DEI doesn't seem to matter, while voters who demonize it does. why you pretend this won't ressonate well with the electorate of our new president?
for that crowd, this a puff piece.
Amezarak
We’re talking about posts promoting prescription medications. There were always strict rules about this on Facebook (banned by default) and the fact that most of these posts ever stayed up was more likely a result of oversight and possibly politics in the first place. You certainly don’t see almost anything about other prescription meds.
https://www.facebook.com/business/help/263390265553560?id=43...
I find it very doubtful that post-election Meta policy had anything to do with this.
ceejayoz
> "The company restored some of the accounts and posts on Thursday, after The New York Times asked about the actions."
It would appear the posts were OK after all.
> You certainly don’t see almost anything about other prescription meds.
I get pretty much non-stop Ozempic ads on Facebook.
> "Aid Access, one of the largest abortion pill providers in the United States, said some posts were removed on its Facebook account and blurred out on its Instagram account since November, with more posts blurred in recent days. The abortion pill service said it has been blocked from accessing its Facebook account since November, and its Instagram account was suspended last week, though it has since been restored."
You don't think the November timing is the slightest bit suspicious?
Amezarak
No, I don’t.
To regard it as suspicious I would have to know:
- Has this happened before? - are they actually compliant with the rules? Or are they being banned and then unbanned because we’re sympathetic to them? - was anyone mass reporting them? Was this human or automatic? - how often are these things banned?
It’s really a miracle most of these outfits are operating at all. In most cases we’re talking about filling out an anonymous form to get prescription medication. It’s not legal. Some of them try to provide a form of legality as a cover (“we definitely have a doctor review your anonymous form”) but not anything that would hold up to scrutiny. It’s not surprising that very few of them are likely following Facebooks rules on top of that.
Of course maybe they should be legal and the situation should be totally different, but Facebook banning grey market prescription drug sellers that almost certainly violate their rules is not surprising. It’s also not surprising they ease up when the NYT asks about it even if there are rule violations because I doubt Meta wants any part of this debate.
reverendsteveii
Having trouble getting past the paywall. Can you confirm that these were posts directly promoting the prescription drugs, or were other posts by this organization also hidden?
gruez
>At this point Meta doesn't even worry about these news and specially right now that it is trying to please the current adminstration
You may not agree with the current administration, but they won the popular vote. What would you rather them do, defy the current administration? Sounds pretty anti-democratic to me. Am I missing a deeper principle here or is it just a matter of "companies should do what I think is right"?
NineStarPoint
I would rather companies do whatever they thought was best with no regards to the current administration, unless forced by law to take some action. Large companies feeling like they need to take actions to please the current President is not great.
gruez
>Large companies feeling like they need to take actions to please the current President is not great.
As opposed to "unaccountable billionaires" or whatever?
n42
> defy the current administration? Sounds pretty anti-democratic to me
defying an administration that you disagree with, within the rule of law, is just about the most American and democratic thing I can imagine.
this is a corporation, not an arm of the government.
gruez
>defying an administration that you disagree with, within the rule of law, is just about the most American and democratic thing I can imagine.
Purdue Pharma caused the opioid crisis which killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. State and federal governments thinks it's liable for billions in damages. Perdue disagrees and is fighting it tooth and nail in the courts, which is within their rights. Would you characterize this as "the most American and democratic thing I can imagine"?
roughly
If you want to wave the flag of "the people's will", well: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public...
gruez
There's a pretty wide gulf between "abortion should be legal in at least most or all cases" and "ads for abortion pills on facebook". The company's spokesperson specifically mentioned it was taken down due to regulations relating to advertising drugs.
afavour
> but they won the popular vote
They didn’t. They won 49.8%. But I’ve got to be honest, any logic along those lines rings very hollow these days. We’ve been told over and over about the “tyranny of the majority” being why a number of sparsely populated states get a disproportionate vote on the country’s destiny. To pivot just because the popular vote flipped to the other side (which, again, it didn’t) feels very… convenient.
skuzye
I don't have a horse in this race nor a particular interest in US elections but I don't think your definition of popular vote is the commonly used one (i.e. candidate doesn't have to have more than 50% to win it).
SpicyLemonZest
I definitely think it's better for companies to do what's right than what's wrong, and I'm not sure I follow your implication that this is a shallower principle than calibrating what I think companies should do against the winner of the most recent federal elections. It would be a harder question if there were a law which requires Instagram or Facebook to block and hide posts from abortion pill providers, but there isn't.
gruez
>I definitely think it's better for companies to do what's right than what's wrong,
And who is the arbiter of "right"? Does this boil down to just "I don't agree with what meta is doing"?
cess11
Yes, you should defy the fash whenever you encounter them and regardless of the size of the movement they've managed to rally.
_DeadFred_
A good short video on it (do not obey in advance):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=159&v=9tocssf3w80&feature=yo...
standardUser
> You may not agree with the current administration, but they won the popular vote
A republican candidate narrowly won the popular vote for the first time in 20 years, a metric that has no value in our system of government. And somehow you think this factoid puts the current administration in a position where they dare not be defied? Give me a fucking break.
gruez
>A republican candidate narrowly won the popular vote for the first time in 20 years, a metric that has no value in our system of government.
I can't tell whether you're trying to make a nitpicky point about how the president is elected, or you're trying to claim the concept of political legitimacy doesn't exist.
tzs
They got 49.8% of the popular vote.
beardyw
Obviously they are trying to curry favour at the moment and don't care what reasonable people might think. My instinct is that it will all prove to have been futile and they will be hung out to dry.
ceejayoz
Yes, most likely. Zuck'll get the Rudy Giuliani treatment eventually.
reverendsteveii
Fascism needs enemies more than allies. Everyone gets Giuliani'd eventually.
1oooqooq
it all depends on which platform can deliver votes.
spencerflem
Also hope you're right on this, but I fear it may not matter much anymore.
spencerflem
I suspect we'll be in this administration for a long time
I hope you're right
mckn1ght
At some point the people at the top turnover. Zuck might just hang in there long enough to step into that role. The resources at his disposal certainly don’t hurt his chances.
smittywerben
I hate how Zuckerberg tiptoes around Section 230; that's what his hyper-masculine phase is about. Pretending medical information shows up on your front door, pretending Cambridge Analytica doesn't show up, pretending you're acting in good faith. It's all pretend. Sure, this child's HIPAA package was posted on Facebook, we don't know what that is. Instead of exporting a child's medical information to a local church, we're exporting it out of the country. That's what good faith means because I'm a philanthropist and I'm a philanthropist for doing so; we developed Zstandard.
userbinator
rules that prohibit the sale of pharmaceutical drugs on its platforms without proper certification
That's what came to mind when I saw the title. Relatedly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37248748
ilikehurdles
There is almost always a non-malicious explanation when it comes to complex technology systems acting in ways that appear politically malicious. You’d think the hackernews crowd would bias towards curiosity over impulsivity.
decremental
[dead]
TheChaplain
If anyone is interested in an instagram alternative, I humbly suggest Pixelfed.
No ads from what I can see and very little disturbing posts so far, and I can have my daily dose of #britishshorthair
eCa
And for those so inclined, not too difficult to install your own instance (the official install guide has a couple of unnecessary pitfalls though).
cozzyd
just deleted my Facebook account... (which I've had for nearly 20 years... but this made me unreasonably angry).
righthand
Now every time you get the urge to log back in, switch to a neglected activity/interest to focus in on. In 30-60 days (I can’t remember the grace period) you’ll have a deeper understanding of this interest and be Facebook free.
_DeadFred_
Don't forget to block them in something like NextDNS or they will continue to track your web usage and associate it with your old account.
throwaway314155
Genocide in Myanmar didn't do the trick for ya?
jk, of course it isn't fair to judge anyone for not leaving social media - it's actually quite valuable at times and going without it feels like missing out.
cynicalsecurity
I have some bad news for you, my friend. Your account has never been deleted and never will be. But thanks for finally quitting.
ryandrake
Serious question: If you never log back in, what does it matter if you have an account or not? An account I never use doesn't appear to have any affect on me.
CamperBob2
Serious question: If you never log back in, what does it matter if you have an account or not? An account I never use doesn't appear to have any affect on me.
By way of example, the Catholic Church holds enormous political power in the US by virtue of its claim to over 50 million members. When the Church speaks up, politicians sit up and take notes. Less than 25% of those members actually attend church weekly, but the others are still counted as "Catholics" because you have to go well out of your way to have yourself formally removed from the church membership rolls. [1] As of 2010 there is apparently no way to do that voluntarily at all.
Facebook works the same way. Once you're in, your account is never truly closed or deleted AFAIK. (I've tried.)
We may debate MAU versus other metrics for assessing user activity, but all the politicians see is "We have 3 billion accounts worldwide, over 250 million of them in the US." Like the church, Facebook is able to wield political power in your name even if you signed up many years ago and now disagree vehemently with everything they stand for.
It seems that the only guaranteed way to avoid this sorry situation, short of changing your name or faking your death, is to refrain from signing up in the first place.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_act_of_defection_from_t...
sophacles
There are some social ramifications. I haven't used my Facebook account in years. Around the holidays I happened to run into an old college buddy and we caught up a bit. It was great, but there was a bit of awkwardness around how he had been in town a couple times and hit me up on facebook to get together, but I had never responded... It's all good between us now that that has been cleared up, however I sure do wish that he didn't think I was blowing him off and he had known to try another contact method. We missed some good times together.
It's not huge in the grand scheme of things, but it's something to consider.
tshaddox
They’ve got:
1) your social connections as of your last usage of the account
2) your behavior profile from all across the web
3) potential ongoing new information about you based on the activity of your social connections
spongebobstoes
That would be illegal. They do delete accounts and data.
LeafItAlone
That must depend on the jurisdiction.
tzs
What if you take a vacation to an EU country and while in that country submit a GDPR request to Facebook for data deletion?
GDPR applies to data subjects who are "in the Union", regardless of residency or citizenship.
zimpenfish
> Your account has never been deleted and never will be.
Be interesting to see how they justify that under the GDPR regulations ("right to be forgotten") for European/UK users.
ceejayoz
One of our EU devs tried to exercise his GDPR rights to be exempt from automated decision making (there was a clear app review bug; thousands of apps impacted at the time). It was quite impossible to do so.
cozzyd
I'm a dual US/EU citizen. Can I use the GDPR?
9283409232
Is this the free speech I've heard so much about?
tonymet
in the article it explains they have restrictions on pharma content in posts and in this case over-enforced and they corrected.
What's the moral of the story? Are they claiming that Meta is against abortions?
The company pays for employees to travel to get abortions and pays for egg freezing.
unethical_ban
An anomalous uptick in censoring information that is politically biased toward the new authoritarian regime is suspicious. Especially when Zuck has explicitly stated his desire to get "in" with the leader, his ~~bribe~~ donation to the leader's inauguration, and so on.
It's also possible that it was as innocuous as aggressive automod.
tonymet
can you explain that part though? i'm still not reading it. is it censoring abortion pills are pro trump activity?
unethical_ban
Yes, I'm saying it's plausible that Meta is acting in line with the Trump administration. The GOP is very anti abortion, to the point state AGs are trying to prosecute put of state doctors for prescribing abortive pills.
cab11150904
Good. How is this a problem. Private platforms have the right to do this.
triceratops
And people have the right to criticize private platforms for doing that. It's all free speech.
thrance
It's deeply hypocritical of these oligarchs to pretend fighting for absolute free speech while exerting unprecedented censorship on their platforms. And if you're OK with that maybe it's because you never actually cared about free speech.
standardUser
It's obvious to any thinking person why this is a problem. Having a "right" to do something does not make doing that thing unobjectionable.
50208
The fake conservative "shadow ban" is now coming into effect against their enemies. They do what they condemn in others.
>Mr. Zuckerberg vowed to loosen restrictions on online speech
It is funny how loosening restrictions somehow seems to result in more moderation of specific topics, tags, etc.