Meta’s decision to appoint UFC President and CEO Dana White to its board of directors has triggered a wave of internal criticism, with many employees expressing discontent over his controversial past. However, the company’s response has sparked further backlash—Meta’s HR team has been removing critical comments about White, raising questions about its commitment to free speech. This internal debate comes shortly after CEO Mark Zuckerberg publicly declared Meta’s renewed focus on “free expression” and relaxed content moderation policies.
Mixed Reactions to White’s Appointment
Zuckerberg’s announcement on Monday that Dana White, along with John Elkann and Charlie Songhurst, would be joining Meta’s board was met with varied reactions from employees. While some showed enthusiasm, with one joking about hiring UFC fighter Conor McGregor for after-work sparring, others were more critical. Their concerns stemmed from White’s violent history, particularly a widely circulated video of him slapping his wife at a nightclub. Although White was not arrested or suspended by UFC, many employees felt uncomfortable with his appointment.
One employee commented, “It’s disheartening to see people celebrating someone caught on video assaulting his wife.” Another echoed the sentiment, adding, “I feel like I’m on another planet.” These comments reflected a broader sense of unease about the ethical implications of White’s appointment.
Meta Deletes Critical Posts Under Internal Guidelines
As employees voiced their concerns, Meta’s Internal Community Relations (ICR) team stepped in to moderate the discussion. Several posts critical of White were deleted, citing violations of the company’s Community Engagement Expectations (CEE). The CEE, which regulates internal communication, discourages employees from insulting or criticizing board members. A message from an ICR team member explained, “We need to maintain a respectful work environment and keep in mind that criticism of board members does not align with our CEE.”
This moderation led to further frustration. One employee questioned, “Why are critical comments about this announcement being deleted?” Another commented, “My post got removed too. Good stuff.” These actions fueled concerns that Meta was suppressing dissent, particularly regarding decisions that might conflict with its public image.
Meta Defends Its Content Policies
In response to the growing frustration, Meta spokesperson Tracy Clayton defended the company’s actions, emphasizing that some critical comments remained visible. “Our CEE is nuanced, and it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach,” Clayton said. She stressed that there had been no changes to the CEE but acknowledged that some posts had been flagged and removed by the community.
However, the timing of Zuckerberg’s announcement about loosening external content moderation rules added to the confusion. He declared, “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression.” This statement, paired with the easing of restrictions on sensitive topics like immigration and gender, created a perception of a disconnect between Meta’s internal and external policies.
Employees Question Double Standard
Many employees pointed out the apparent contradiction between Zuckerberg’s message about free speech and Meta’s internal censorship. One employee asked, “Is this shift in content moderation also going to apply to internal discussions?” Another noted the chilling effect of the CEE, saying that even broad critiques of company decisions were swiftly flagged. This created a sense of unease within the workforce, with employees wondering if their ability to voice concerns was being stifled.
Despite the internal tension, one employee managed to post a message that hasn’t been deleted: “I love my wife and daughter, and I respect other people.” This comment appeared to be a subtle response to the situation, signaling how employees are navigating Meta’s moderation policies.
Meta Stresses Separation of Internal and External Policies
Clayton reiterated that the internal and external content policies are separate. “Our internal moderation is designed to minimize disruption and ensure a productive work environment,” she explained. “It’s inaccurate to say we’re loosening external restrictions while tightening them internally.”
The company’s strict approach to internal criticism is indicative of a broader shift within the tech industry. In its early days, companies like Meta and Google encouraged open discussions, believing that internal dissent would lead to better products and a more engaged workforce. However, as these companies have grown, they have increasingly restricted internal speech, prioritizing workplace harmony over unfettered debate.
