Platforms Have Failed Us on Abortion Content. Here's How They Can Fix It.

"In our Stop Censoring Abortion series, we've documented the many ways that reproductive rights advocates have faced arbitrary censorship on Meta platforms. Since social media is the primary-and sometimes the only-way that providers, advocates, and communities can safely and effectively share timely and accurate information about abortion, it's vitally important that platforms take steps to proactively protect this speech. Yet, even though Meta says its moderation policies allow abortion-related speech, its enforcement of those policies tells a different story."

"So what explains the gap between Meta's public commitments and its actions? And how can we push platforms to be better-to, dare we say, #StopCensoringAbortion? After reviewing nearly one-hundred submissions and speaking with Meta to clarify their moderation practices, here's what we've learned. Platforms' Editorial Freedom to Moderate User Content First, given the current landscape-with some states trying to criminalize speech about abortion-you may be wondering how much leeway platforms like Facebook and Instagram have to choose their own content moderation policies."

"The answer is yes. Social media companies, including Meta, TikTok, and X, have the constitutionally protected First Amendment right to moderate user content however they see fit. They can take down posts, suspend accounts, or suppress content for virtually any reason. The Supreme Court explicitly affirmed this right in 2023 in Moody v. Netchoice, holding that social media platforms, like newspapers, bookstores, and art"

Reproductive rights advocates have experienced arbitrary censorship on Meta platforms, including wrongful flags, disappearing accounts, and removal of important information without clear justification. Social media often functions as the primary—and sometimes the only—means for providers, advocates, and communities to safely and effectively share timely, accurate abortion information. Meta's written policies permit abortion-related speech, but enforcement practices create a gap between policy and action. Social media companies possess constitutionally protected editorial freedom to moderate user content and can remove or suppress speech. Nearly one hundred submissions were reviewed and Meta was contacted to clarify moderation practices. The Supreme Court affirmed platform editorial rights in Moody v. Netchoice (2023).

Read at Electronic Frontier Foundation