WFD: Meta’s 2025 Policy Update is Opening the Floodgates to Abortion Misinformation
Written by Sneha Nair and Michell Mor
Meta’s newest modifications to its community standards, hate speech policies, and content moderation practices introduce several sweeping changes to how sexual and reproductive health (SRH) topics are moderated and shared across its platforms. While these updates aim to promote “free expression”, they come with significant risks, particularly when it comes to human bias, vague guidelines, and the broader implications for free expression. For SRH organizations, advocates, and everyday users, introducing these new policies and practices raises uncomfortable questions about how much control a company like Meta should have over health-related conversations, and whether we’re compromising a 'safer' online space for a more open internet.
A photo from a safe2choose.org Inktober campaign was removed because it was considered to be dangerous for depicting abortion pills on November 18, 2024.
Public Health vs. Public Debate
Reducing the spread of harmful, unverified claims about sexual health can protect vulnerable populations, prevent confusion, and combat the real-life consequences of misleading information. However, the enforcement of these rules is fraught with complications. Meta’s move to reduce its reliance on vetted fact-checkers and transition to a Community Notes model could potentially lead to increased human bias, inconsistencies, and errors in the platform’s moderation of user-generated content.
As Meta gradually moves away from its traditional third-party fact-checking model in favor of this new community-driven approach, the effectiveness and accuracy of this shift remains to be seen. Misinformation is difficult enough to identify in the context of traditional health issues, but with SRH topics, where culture and personal beliefs play a big role in attitudes towards this type of care, the risk of overreach is especially high. What makes SRH different is the strong stigma around abortion care, which isn’t found in other areas of healthcare. This negative attitude can help spread false information about it.
A post about abortion rights may be flagged for promoting illegal practices, even when it's simply sharing medically accurate reproductive health information without advocating for specific procedures. Similarly, conversations about contraceptive access or sex education that challenge dominant narratives may be prematurely flagged as misleading or harmful simply because they don't align with mainstream or politically conservative viewpoints. Meta’s policies are ambiguous, which may lead users to view abortion as a 'social topic' rather than a medical one, due to the politicization of reproductive health issues. This blurring of lines between medical facts and political discourse can create confusion in how SRH content is treated. The problem? Meta’s new policies don’t offer clear enough guidelines on what constitutes "misleading" content versus legitimate debate or activism.
howtouseabortionpill.org was blocked from posting on Facebook after publishing content about abortion pills on October 2nd, 2024.
These ambiguous definitions open the door for overzealous moderation or, worse, the stifling of critical health discussions.
Are We Trusting the Right People?
Meta’s content moderation relies on both automated systems and human moderators- for both methods, human bias is likely. Whether it's a moderator with personal views on what constitutes "appropriate" content, or algorithmic systems trained on limited data, the risk of bias is constantly present. The effectiveness of these tools depends on the diversity of data and the guidelines they follow, which can inadvertently reflect systemic biases. This presents challenges in managing sensitive topics like sexual and reproductive health, where fairness and context are critical. A forward-thinking approach will involve continually refining these systems to reduce bias and ensure that moderation aligns with diverse, inclusive, and culturally sensitive perspectives.
In the current digital climate, SRH advocates are left constantly second-guessing whether their posts, even if scientifically accurate, will be removed or restricted because they discuss a topic that has been deemed “sensitive” due to societal discourse or mainstream media. There’s also the larger issue of who gets to define “misinformation” in the first place, and if platforms will even share examples of what abortion misinformation looks like.
Vague Guidelines Are Barriers to Open Dialogue
One of the most concerning aspects of the 2025 policy update is the vagueness of the guidelines, particularly when it comes to sensitive SRH topics. While Meta’s policy on combating misinformation is clear in theory — prohibit false or misleading health claims — the practical application is much murkier. What happens when a public health campaign, while fact-based, clashes with cultural, political, or religious views? Or when a conversation about consent or sexual identity doesn’t neatly fit into the parameters of what’s considered "appropriate"?
While specific guidelines on sensitive health topics like abortion and contraceptive access are not detailed, Meta’s newly-implemented changes may impact how such content is managed on the platform. This seems reasonable on the surface, but the lack of clear criteria could create significant barriers for organizations trying to offer easy-to-understand information written in a non-medicalized language. SRH topics often require a delicate balance of personal, legal, and medical perspectives, and the new policy risks over-simplifying these issues in the name of safety.
For example, a nonprofit organization that provides information about abortion care might find itself forced to revise its educational posts, making them less direct or overly vague. This push for compliance with platform rules could undermine the ability to foster open, informed conversations about abortion care, leaving users with diluted information.
Obstructing Free Speech and Activism
Perhaps the greatest cost of Meta’s 2025 updated policies and practices is their potential to stifle free speech and activism. Meta, as a private company, has the right to enforce rules on its platform, but when it comes to topics as critical as sexual and reproductive health, the line between protecting users and controlling discourse becomes dangerously thin. SRH organizations, particularly those advocating for marginalized groups, already struggle to get their messages out in the face of censorship and misinformation. The new guidelines and practices could further curtail their ability to have important conversations about reproductive rights, sex education, and healthcare access — all under the guise of "protecting" users.
This creates a paradox: While Meta’s policies aim to reduce harm, they could unintentionally reinforce existing power structures by suppressing the voices of those advocating for change. Activists who rely on Meta's platforms to amplify their voices are now at the mercy of a content moderation system that could dismiss their legitimate posts as "harmful" simply because they’re politically or culturally sensitive. As these platforms grow more influenced by external pressures, including political interests, activists are finding their ability to engage in free expression increasingly restricted, as they are forced to navigate a digital landscape where the line between free speech and censorship is dangerously blurred. The result is a chilling effect on the very movements that rely on social media to mobilize, educate, and advocate for change. It is now abundantly clear that platforms like Meta and X are aligning with right-wing agendas, as they actively cater to the interests of key conservative figures to avoid potential tech regulations. This strategic alignment may soon become more evident through platform policies and practices, which activists fear will become more restrictive in the future.
A Safer Space or a Controlled Space? Also, What Happens When The Recent Changes Go Global?
Meta’s recent updates to its content policies and fact-checking practices highlight the urgent need for clarity and fairness in content moderation. Past instances, where scientifically accurate and socially vital content was removed, revealed the risks of vague guidelines and biased enforcement. These missteps underscore the importance of treating public health topics as essential resources rather than political flashpoints.
To support access to abortion information on its platforms, Meta must work to refine their policies, provide clearer guidelines, and ensure that moderation isn’t driven by bias. By doing this, Meta can balance protecting users and safeguarding open, critical dialogue. To achieve this, Meta should collaborate with global health organizations, coalitions like Repro Uncensored, and other key advocacy groups to shape content policies that are evidence-based, accurate, and aligned with best healthcare practices. Recognizing the diverse realities of global users, region-specific guidelines should be prioritized over one-size-fits-all solutions that could inadvertently silence marginalized voices.
Creating transparent feedback loops, where users and experts can actively help refine moderation practices over time, would further ensure that policies evolve in a way that serves the platform’s diverse audience. If Meta doesn’t act decisively, it risks losing user trust, diminishing its credibility, and facing legal challenges in regions with stricter digital content laws. Here’s hoping they find the line.
Supplementary reading on the new content policy update -
https://restofworld.org/2025/meta-drops-fact-checking-partnerships-global-watchdogs-scramble/