NSO also claimed that their Pegasus software couldn't target US or Israeli phone numbers, but we now know that isn't true, so excuse me if it's hard to take their word for anything they say publicly. Not to mention that time they claimed they weren't involved in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and then later we found Pegasus on the phones of his fiancée, wife, and other relatives.

Same goes for Meta, at one point it becomes blatantly obvious that you cannot trust any of their statements, because they turn out again and again to not be true.

_all_ accounts are surely not gone, that's so much moderating effort it never happened for any specific rule.

Do all the reported accounts and content get nuked ? Potentially yes ?

That’s not what the person you’re replying to said.

> Are all accounts linked to abortion or queer content now gone from Facebook?

Is that what the guardian claimed?

The question would be, are any such accounts limited, blocked, or removed? It seems the answer there is "yes".

That would mean Facebook's response is either blatantly false, or deceptively using weasel wording.

Nearly all of the LGBT groups that I am aware of are primarily on Discord and other, similar services for this very reason. All of the other socials exist only as on ramps to the real community. The weirdos can shout into the void all they like, but nobody's listening to or engaging with them.

This is also why I keep saying that the Discord model is the future of social media, not Facebook or Twitter. Turns out that when you can allow users to exert meaningful control over their social spaces, instead of relying on the judgment of some of the most sociopathic, self-interested and immoral people in tech, you can create actual communities.

> LGBT is sexually explicit topic.

No it is not. When I say “my husband and I”, I am asserting a fact and who I am as a gay guy and I’m not stating anything sexual.

> being US companies retain a puritanical attitude

I do not know that to be true. The US is an also a playground of very explicit pornographic online services. But everything has its place.

There is a real practical problem that is not easily solvable, and that is how to draw a reasonable line at scale across different cultures and legal frameworks. Anyone saying it is easy or clear is not a serious thinker.

I'm an optimist, myself. But, I think the system can't be fixed until the ability for individuals/influencers to spread false narratives is heavily modified. The news literally cannot keep pace with the fake news. The latter takes a fraction of the time to generate and spreads using more guerilla like techniques.. and nobody is punished at all for enabling it.

We're asking credible news sources to fit a gun fit with sticks.

I would assume some good faith on their part. Verification would be valuable, but so would timely release of information. If the reports are true, an active harm to those organizations are being done, and it would be valuable for the public to know sooner than later. If you attempt to verify the information, but it's taking more time and resources than you have to do the job quickly, releasing the information with attribution to a reputable source is the least harmful option.

Nobody is claiming that Facebook is shutting down all accounts posting abortion info and queer content. The fact that some high-profile accounts are still online doesn't in any way invalidate the possibility that it is shutting down smaller accounts at an increased rate.

The Guardian article interviews several people whose accounts have been shut down. Are you proposing that all those people are lying, or is there perhaps the possibility of Facebook not telling the whole truth? Should you not be skeptical of Facebook's "we didn't do anything" claim as well?