Meta’s policy chief testified that post-2025 moderation aimed to curb content with potential offline harm, but critics argued the changes actually amplified antisemitic content online.

Meta pursued preemptive removal of hateful content, yet executives acknowledged the risk of over-enforcement that could silence legitimate expression during crises or discussions about atrocities.

Australian inputs confirmed the continued use of fact-checkers for misinformation and signaled that tools like community notes could roll out in Australia, with Meta Australia’s liaison detailing escalation procedures for complaints.

The inquiry noted a 79% drop in reported hateful conduct actions, with Good attributing the decrease to a complex ecosystem rather than policy changes alone.

Internal Meta guidance reportedly permitted certain antisemitic and dehumanizing statements, highlighting tensions between enforcement and free expression.

Meta faced scrutiny over its 2025 move to reduce censorship on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, shifting toward less proactive moderation and greater reliance on user reports for non-illegal content.

Discrepancies in hate speech metrics were raised: Meta claimed 0.02% of content violated hate policy since 2022, while critics argued that policy shifts could still yield large absolute violation numbers.

Zionist terminology was addressed as Meta expanded hate speech rules to ban claims like “Zionists control the media” when used as a proxy for antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Mark Zuckerberg framed the approach as a trade-off: fewer bad posts and fewer innocent removals, prioritizing content that could lead to offline harm.