Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has dismantled its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, marking a significant shift in its corporate priorities. The changes, which include scrapping programmes to diversify its workforce and relaxing rules on hate speech, have sparked outrage among employees, civil rights groups, and feminist organisations.
An internal memo confirmed that longstanding efforts to increase the representation of women and minority groups in leadership roles and hiring processes have been abandoned. Requirements for diverse candidate pools have also been dropped, and Maxine Williams, Meta’s chief diversity officer, has been reassigned to a less prominent role. These changes come as Meta aligns itself with the policies of the incoming US administration led by Donald Trump.
Meta justified these decisions by referencing legal shifts, such as the US Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action. However, critics argue the move is a deliberate attempt to align with right-wing political priorities. Meta’s decision to end DEI initiatives mirrors actions taken by other large corporations, but its explicit rejection of such programmes has drawn particular scrutiny.
In addition to these changes, Meta has updated its content moderation policies, weakening protections for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other marginalised groups. Users are now allowed to post content that includes degrading comments about women and claims that transgender people are mentally ill. These changes, framed by Meta as a push for “free expression”, have been widely condemned as enabling harmful rhetoric.
Critics, including Sarah Kate Ellis, president of LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD, have warned that these changes could encourage online abuse. Many argue that the loosening of restrictions signals a dangerous regression for a company that once prioritised inclusivity and safety.
Mark Zuckerberg’s public statements about these changes have further fuelled concerns. In a recent interview, he criticised what he called a “neutered” corporate culture and praised “masculine energy” as a corrective measure. While he stated that he supports women’s success, his comments have been interpreted as dismissive of efforts to address gender inequality. Employees have reportedly voiced their frustrations internally, with some calling the policy changes a betrayal of Meta’s values.
Meta’s shift extends beyond DEI programmes. The company has also ended partnerships with third-party fact-checkers, replacing them with a community-driven system similar to that used by X (formerly Twitter). Zuckerberg described the decision as a return to Meta’s roots of free expression, but experts warn it could lead to a rise in misinformation. Critics believe this move, along with Meta’s other policy changes, reflects an effort to appease right-wing voices, including Trump’s administration.
One particularly controversial decision has been the removal of tampons and sanitary products from men’s restrooms in Meta offices. These facilities had been provided to support transgender and nonbinary employees, and their removal has been seen as another example of Meta abandoning its inclusivity commitments.
For many, these decisions represent a troubling shift in Meta’s priorities. Feminist and civil rights groups have expressed fears that the company is deliberately enabling discrimination and misinformation under the guise of promoting free speech. The rollback of DEI initiatives, combined with relaxed hate speech policies, has left advocates concerned about the precedent this sets for other tech companies.
While Meta claims these changes are about fairness and adapting to legal shifts, the timing has raised questions. With Trump returning to power and mounting pressure from conservative groups, Meta’s decisions appear to be politically motivated, aimed at gaining favour with the new administration.
The impact of these changes extends far beyond Meta’s workforce. As one of the world’s largest social media platforms, Meta’s policies shape public discourse and influence global conversations. Its decisions to weaken protections for vulnerable groups and abandon diversity goals have left many questioning its commitment to building a fair and equitable online space.
