Social networks won’t be able to stay neutral on abortion

Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge

There are questions about data safety and moderation left after the end of the abortion ban.

For years, web platforms have not faced a lot of backlash for removing posts that violate US law. In the US, where the First Amendment has historically protected a lot of content, policies that match the laws of the country are usually code for very permissive moderation. The carveout targeted the marginalized community of sex workers and used the excuse that it was fighting sex traffickers.

State laws against abortion could change that. Some groups want this ban to cover even information about the procedure, because most Americans think it should be legal. In response, large parts of the web have offered to put up people seeking abortions and ship abortion pills, as well as publicizing information about self-managed abortion.

Questions are being raised for Facebook and Meta. There are rules against offering to buy, sell, trade, gift, request, or donate pharmaceuticals on both platforms. According to a report from The Intercept, it banned praising or supporting an abortion rights protest group called Jane's Revenge, which has claimed responsibility for setting a fire at the office of an anti- abortion group.

These decisions aren't surprising Meta has a ban on selling drugs like cannabis in states that have laws against it. Jane's Revenge supports a cause many people find sympathetic, but it's claimed credit for crimes and called for a "night of rage" and "drastic measures" against anti- abortion infrastructure.

Critics have questioned the level of scrutiny. The account of an abortion services locator was removed from the photo sharing site due to the fact that it was being used in posts that violated guidelines. The Oath Keepers and Three Percenters insurrectionist groups were more restrictive than Jane's Revenge.

The Oversight Board is supposed to make difficult, nuanced moderation calls with some independence from Meta. The Oversight Board hasn't taken up any abortion-related cases since the Supreme Court decision. The organization didn't reply by press time, despite acknowledging an email from The Verge asking if it was considering the issues. It's possible that it will do so in the future, drawing lines between things like providing medical information and facilitating a procedure.

Even if it takes on the issue, states and politicians will still go after platforms that host abortion related content. Legislators in South Carolina have proposed an apparent version of the model anti-abortion law from the National Right to Life committee. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is facing a lot of challenges.

There are other issues where platforms could end up facing a lot of requests to remove content. Thirty-four states have introduced bills governing social network moderation, with many requiring sites to leave specific content up, but others demanding the removal of medical misinformation. There is a growing political movement to stop booksellers and libraries from allowing children to read books related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer community.

Web platforms have always had to deal with following laws that are not always in line with their beliefs. Hate speech was limited in European countries while aiming to be the free speech wing of the free speech party. They have been asked to draw moral lines that go beyond the laws of a country. Apple has been criticized for following Chinese demands for access to user data. The sites that submit to abortion-related police requests could be censured.

Even when it involves deliberately putting their thumb on the moderation scale, companies like Meta have practical incentives to avoid being seen as partisan in the US. Many employees have expressed support for their reproductive choices, but they have been more circumspect about their stance on the issue. Eventually, they will have to make a decision because of the abortion bans.