Meta took a contentious action that’s shocking the tech industry and beyond. The social media behemoth employed far-right social media personality Robby Starbuck, who has engaged in anti-LGBTQ+ activism and promoted conspiracy theories, as an “AI bias advisor” after settling a defamation case.
The hiring is part of a court battle in which Meta’s AI chat program falsely connected Starbuck with the January 6 Capitol insurrection and QAnon ideology. Meta settled and instead of correcting it, they offered Starbuck an advisory position. In their joint press release, the two assert this partnership has already “improved the accuracy of Meta AI and mitigated ideological and political bias” in the system.
Who Is Robby Starbuck?
Starbuck is not your typical tech consultant. He is a former congressional candidate and music video producer with a taste for taking on corporate America, but he’s become famous for something quite different: spearheading vicious social media attacks on pro-diversity, pro-inclusion corporations.
His record is impressive from a conservative activist perspective. Starbuck has been able to successfully pressure large corporations such as Tractor Supply, John Deere, and Harley-Davidson to drop their DEI initiatives by threatening boycotts and rallying his large conservative base. He couches these efforts as a combat against destructive “woke” ideologies.
But Starbuck’s reach is not limited to corporate activism. He posts anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and conspiracy theories on a regular basis. One of his more outlandish theories is that pesticides such as atrazine allegedly turn amphibians “gay” in accordance with a conspiracy theory stolen from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and allegedly turn children LGBTQ+. He’s also posted misinformation about transgender rights and COVID-19 vaccinations, including the unsubstantiated theory that vaccinations killed actor Matthew Perry.
Dramatic Policy Change of Meta
Starbuck’s hiring is not an isolated incident. It follows Meta radically reforming its Facebook and Instagram content moderation policies in January 2025. The changes have had the effect of reversing a number of protections for LGBTQ people and other minority groups.
According to the new guidelines, discriminatory or derogatory posts based on gender, sex, or sexuality are allowed. More despicable, posts proclaiming LGBTQ+ identities as indicators of mental illness or abnormality are allowed, as long as it’s presented as “political or religious opinion.”
Meta has also dropped its collaborations with third-party fact-checkers in favor of a “Community Notes” system that critics say is susceptible to manipulation. Company executives led by Mark Zuckerberg defend the changes as necessary to “restore free expression.”
The Wider Political Context
This action is one part of an even bigger conservative effort to remove so-called “woke” aspects from AI systems. President Trump has even signed an executive order to aim at government AI systems they’ve classified as ideologically biased. Supporters say they are making AI “apolitical,” although critics say it really imposes right-wing agendas on online space.
LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations such as GLAAD are ringing alarm bells over the changes. They are cautioning that stripping hate speech protections and arming individuals like Starbuck can unleash unchecked bigotry and misinformation onto Meta platforms.
The issue is not theoretical. Meta’s AI systems interact with billions of people every month, deciding what to amplify, downrank, or eliminate altogether. Having someone with no experience in AI but a publicly recorded past of amplifying conspiracy theories giving input to these systems is concerning about the future of these platforms.
For LGBTQ+ individuals and other marginalized groups, the stakes have been high: reduced online safety, increased harassment, and narrowing access to inclusive virtual spaces.
Meta’s move is not just a change in employees—it is a profound change in the way one of the world’s biggest social media platforms thinks about content moderation, AI development, and its duty to keep vulnerable users safe. Conservatives are hailing the move as a triumph for free speech, but activists fear it is a terrible step backwards for digital safety and inclusion.
