@rysiek
Ah.
So EFF stands for free expression and freedom of political speech, as long as it is correct speech with which they agree. It'd be good if Meta allowed more “sex worker advocacy groups, LGBTQ+ advocates, Palestine advocates”, but it becomes “hateful content” once they allow “advocating gender-based exclusions”. So women (a word which doesn't appear once in this article discussing various vulnerable groups) advocating for single-sex sports and spaces is too much for EFF's conception of free expression.
This is just so disingenuous.
I think there are things to complain about in the Meta's new policy. I don't see any reason to allow “insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights, immigration, or homosexuality” — I'm very much against that, I think insulting language harms freedom of expression, and I think the two of us have shown that discussion of such topics is very much possible without resorting to insulting language and better for it. I also see no reason to allow “allegations of mental illness” in these context, where it's obviously used to stigmatize.
But EFF goes much further. In EFF's view, the discussions we've been having here shouldn't have taken place at all, in any form.
This is bigotry on EFF's part, this assumption that positions which they do not share can be defined as “hate” and shouldn't be ever allowed to be uttered.
Much freedom of expression.
Once they put it like this — that there should be more LGBTQ+ advocates, but single-sex spaces/sports advocates shouldn't even be allowed to speak — one has to ask questions. They say: more sex worker advocates — should then Nordic model advocates be allowed to speak, or not? They say: more Palestine advocates — should then Zionists be allowed to speak, or not?
This is very thinly-veiled bigotry, plain and simple. They don't want “more political speech”. They want more of their political tribe's speech and no questioning it, because questioning is “hate”.