Meta has come under scrutiny at Australia’s Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion after hearings revealed a sharp drop in hateful content being removed from Facebook following policy changes introduced in early 2025.
The Royal Commission was established on 9 January 2026 in response to the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025, which killed 15 people and injured 40 others. Its final report is due by 14 December 2026.
While the commission’s core focus is antisemitism and social cohesion, this week’s hearings have also placed Meta’s broader approach to hate speech under the microscope, including changes that LGBTQIA+ advocates say have made Facebook and Instagram less safe for queer, trans and non-binary users.
Meta questioned over policy changes
The first witness in the latest hearing block was Benjamin Good, Meta’s director of content policy, who appeared by video link from the United States.
Good told the commission that Meta’s 2025 content policy changes were primarily related to gender and immigration and were designed to “allow more content, more speech on the platform”.
In January 2025, Meta announced major changes to its moderation approach, including ending its third-party fact-checking programme in the United States, moving towards a Community Notes model, lifting restrictions on some topics and focusing enforcement on illegal and “high-severity” violations.
Those changes also included revisions to Meta’s Hateful Conduct policy, which LGBTQIA+ organisations strongly criticised.
According to GLAAD’s 2025 Social Media Safety Index, Meta’s January 2025 changes “eviscerated” many protections for LGBTQ users. GLAAD said the revisions allowed and encouraged hate, harassment and discrimination against LGBTQ people, particularly trans and non-binary users.
The Human Rights Campaign also warned at the time that Meta’s overhaul included ending fact-checking, reducing moderation efforts and dismantling protections in ways that could endanger LGBTQ+ communities.
79% drop in hateful content actioned
During the Royal Commission hearing, Meta was questioned over data showing that between July and September 2025, Facebook actioned 1.2 million pieces of hateful conduct content — a 79% drop compared with previous enforcement levels.
The Australian reported that the hearing also heard Instagram saw a 73% drop in proactive removals of hateful content following Meta’s moderation changes.
Meta has argued that the policy shift was intended to reduce over-enforcement and avoid mistakenly removing lawful content. In January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg said the changes meant Meta would “catch less bad stuff”, but would also reduce the number of innocent posts and accounts mistakenly taken down.
The platform now relies more heavily on user reporting, rather than proactively removing broader categories of content before they are reported.
Good told the commission he did not believe the changes had led to more antisemitic content being displayed, though commissioners and counsel questioned whether the significant drop in actioned hateful content suggested harmful material was being left online.
LGBTQIA+ communities already warning of harm
For many LGBTQIA+ users, the Royal Commission evidence confirms concerns they have been raising since Meta’s policy changes were first announced.
GLAAD’s Social Media Safety Index found Meta’s platforms continued to perform poorly on LGBTQ safety, giving Instagram a score of 41 and Facebook a score of 40 out of 100.
The report said the political climate in the United States had direct consequences for social media safety around the world, particularly for LGBTQ people, trans users and young people who rely on online spaces for community and support.
It also raised concerns about blanket age-minimum bans, such as Australia’s social media age-restriction laws, arguing they can disproportionately affect LGBTQ youth who rely on social media for safety resources and connection.
GLAAD also warned that increasing reliance on automated moderation and AI systems can lead to LGBTQ content and accounts being wrongly suppressed, shadowbanned or removed.
That concern has already been felt by queer creators and community organisations in Australia.
Can queer communities safely rely on Meta?
The issue is not limited to Australia.
Dutch queer organisations and digital rights advocates have taken legal action against Meta over alleged targeting and censorship of LGBTQIA+ communities.
In Australia, Digital Rights Watch is now working with Repro Uncensored to document reports of LGBTQIA+ accounts being censored across Meta platforms.
The Royal Commission has made clear that social media platforms play a powerful role in shaping public discourse, visibility and safety.
For Jewish communities, the hearings have highlighted how antisemitic abuse, misinformation and harassment can spread rapidly online.
For LGBTQIA+ communities, Meta’s policy changes raise a parallel concern: platforms may simultaneously allow more hate to remain visible while wrongly suppressing the accounts and events of marginalised communities trying to organise, advocate and survive.
Social media remains essential infrastructure for communication, visibility, nightlife, activism and community connection.
But the question now facing queer communities is difficult: how safe is it to keep relying on platforms that can silence them, while allowing threats, misinformation and hate to circulate as “speech”?
Perhaps it is time to rethink how much power Meta holds over LGBTQIA+ visibility — and to build stronger community-owned spaces that do not depend on the approval of algorithms.
