Actuality¹³⁸

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, recently made a major shift by ending its Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) programs, while replacing its fact-checking system with a community moderation approach.

Presented as a return to “core values” and a commitment to freedom of expression, this decision has provoked numerous reactions and raised concerns about the protection of under-represented communities in a digital space where large corporations increasingly dictate the rules of the game.

This decision cannot be isolated from a broader context marked by growing economic pressures and the rise of anti-woke rhetoric.

This movement, fueled by the election of Donald Trump and the rise of conservative movements, criticizes initiatives perceived as excessively progressive and defends a return to traditional values. With the support of certain political leaders promising reform, “anti-wokeism” is emerging as a major force influencing corporate decisions.

In an uncertain economic climate, companies like Meta are reassessing their commitments, from EDI to community moderation policies, often with a short-term perspective. The rise of this socio-political opposition, combined with the need to reassure investors, is creating a perfect storm that is prompting business leaders to review their strategic priorities.

In addition, the emergence of new regulations limiting inclusion initiatives is prompting some companies to readjust their commitments to avoid legal and reputational risks.

Meta claims that this reorientation responds to changing business priorities and the growing debate between freedom of expression and the fight against hate speech. The company argues that these changes will encourage a more open dialogue and a return to its core principles.

However, many are concerned that the initiative will undermine protections against discriminatory practices and harmful content.

Meta is currently facing a class action in Quebec, which has been given the green light by the courts. Facebook is accused of “allowing”, by providing ad targeting tools, the dissemination of discriminatory ads based on criteria such as ethnic origin, age and gender.1

This case thus raises essential questions about the responsibility of digital platforms in terms of equity and inclusion.

In the wake of these changes, Meta has also introduced Community Notes, inspired by the X platform (formerly Twitter). This new tool relies on the involvement of users to moderate content, on the pretext of reducing the bias of traditional verification methods.

While some welcome this approach for its increased transparency, others worry about an increase in misinformation and harmful speech. Collective moderation could lack the expertise needed to guarantee reliable, objective information.

Meta's recent decisions highlight the continuing tension between freedom of expression and the need to control potentially harmful content. Although the company presents its choices as a way of empowering users, many experts believe that they could actually exacerbate problematic discourse.

These decisions are also part of a wider context, as other major corporations such as McDonald's, Ford and Google review their EDI commitments under economic and socio-political pressure. This trend raises concerns about the future of digital inclusion and the consequences for the communities that depend on these initiatives for visibility and representation.

Meta's recent decisions raise important questions about the responsibility of digital giants in reconciling freedom of expression and inclusion. Do these changes represent a step towards greater operational efficiency, or a step backwards in terms of social responsibility? The challenge lies in maintaining a balance between openness and responsibility without compromising the principles of inclusivity.

Organizational leaders exert considerable influence on public policy and societal norms. Their decisions have a profound and lasting impact on communities. Freedom of expression without a proper framework risks creating environments where some voices dominate to the detriment of others.

-------------------------------------------------

^{1. https://www.ledevoir.com/socie...}