Abortion pills blocked by Meta discover how Facebook and Instagram limit access to crucial information on reproductive health. A controversy that raises questions about freedom of expression.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, is at the center of a controversy after taking drastic action against publications linked to abortion pills. Several providers and organizations have seen their content blocked, their publications blurred and even their accounts suspended. These actions, described as "excessive", are fuelling debate about freedom of expression and access to vital information.
Censorship raises questions
Over the past few weeks, Meta's blocked abortion pills have become a focus of concern for health advocates. Organizations such as Aid Access, Women Help Women, and Just the Pill have reported their posts being blurred on Instagram and deleted on Facebook. Some even had their accounts temporarily suspended, a decision that Meta justified by citing its "community standards" on regulated products such as medicines.
The timing of these actions is troubling. While Mark Zuckerberg had recently announced a relaxation of content of Meta, this wave of censorship seems to contradict these promises. Critics point to an inconsistency between words and deeds, fuelling questions about the real aims of these new rules.
Why are abortion pills targeted?
Meta justifies its actions by the need to regulate the online sale of pharmaceutical products, in compliance with local laws and internal policies. However, the legitimate suppliers of abortion pills blocked by Meta claim that their activities fully comply with FDA (Food and Drug Administration) regulations in the USA. These pills, including mifepristone and misoprostol, can legally be prescribed by telemedicine and sent by mail in several US states.
Despite this, the legal context surrounding abortion remains complex. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, several states have banned access to abortion, including via medicated pills. These restrictive laws seem to indirectly influence Meta's moderation policies, even in states where abortion remains legal.
The consequences of this censorship
Meta's blocking of content related to abortion pills has worrying repercussions. These platforms are often the main source of information for women seeking discreet and safe solutions. Concerned organizations, such as Hey Jane, have expressed their frustration at these restrictions. Rebecca Davis, Marketing Director at Hey Jane, said, "This active removal prevents us from providing crucial information to those who need it most."
According to Lisa Femia, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this problem is far from new. Since 2022, she notes a significant increase in the deletion of content related to reproductive healthcare on social networks. She sees these actions as a direct threat to access to information and public health.
Meta's explanations and limitations
Meta described the incidents as "excessive moderation". In a statement, the company said, "We have made it clear that we want to allow more freedom of expression and reduce moderation errors." However, this statement does not reassure the organizations affected, who perceive a recurring trend towards unjustified deletion of their publications.
The social networking giant also pointed out that certain measures resulted from the automatic detection of keywords associated with the sale of drugs. But critics point out that these tools often lack nuance, targeting educational and legal information instead of genuinely problematic content.
A situation to keep an eye on
Meta's blocking of abortion pills highlights the growing challenges facing social networks in their role as content moderators. If Meta truly wishes to promote freedom of expression, it will need to demonstrate a better ability to distinguish legitimate content from violations of its policies.
For reproductive rights advocates, this case underlines the importance of transparent and fair digital platforms. Social networks are not just spaces for sharing: they play an essential role in providing access to public health information. Excessive deletion or blocking of such content can have serious consequences, ranging from misinformation to increased risks for the most vulnerable individuals.