Meta’s recent policy changes and public stances signal a shift that could have far-reaching consequences for both its employees and users. From dismantling DEI programs to advocating for ‘masculine energy’ and relaxing content moderation, these moves represent a significant departure from the company’s previous positions.
The Reversal of a Decade’s Progress in DEI
The recent announcement that Meta is terminating its DEI programs reverses what was reportedly a decade of intentional investments in diversity, equity and inclusion. An internal company memo from Janelle Gale, Meta’s vice president of human resources, stated that they were making this change because the “legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing.”
In 2014, Meta started reporting on diversity metrics and outlined their plans to better support underrepresented groups both in its workforce and through its products. By 2022, the company announced that it was on track to meet–or had already met–its key diversity goals, including doubling the number of Black, Hispanic and women employees.
Meta’s past commitment and progress towards DEI make their abrupt termination of the program and corresponding team all the more alarming. While these changes may garner favor in the current political climate, they carry significant risks for company performance.
A 2023 McKinsey report found that companies in the top quartiles for gender and racial diversity in leadership were 39% more likely to financially outperform those in the bottom quartiles.
Yet Meta appears to be catering to a misunderstanding of DEI—one that views it as “preferential treatment of some groups over others.” In reality, equitable corporate practices benefit all employees, not just those from marginalized groups. The very heart of equity work is recognizing what each person needs in order to be successful, and providing them with that support. Removing equitable resources and opportunities from company culture can be harmful to every employee’s experience.
By terminating its DEI programs under the guise of avoiding preferential treatment, Meta risks undoing years of progress and creating a workplace where success is determined more by privilege than true merit.
The ‘Masculine Energy’ Mandate
In a recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed that companies need more ‘masculine energy.’ He explained that “masculine energy I think is good, and obviously society has plenty of that, but I think that corporate culture was really trying to get away from it.”
However, traditionally masculine traits are perceived differently when displayed by women. As Liat Ben-Zur, a technology executive and corporate board member, noted in a LinkedIn post, “This same energy that men are taught to brandish, unapologetically and with pride, becomes a weapon turned inward when a woman dares to wield it… Women who embody ‘masculine energy’ are seen as competent but cold, ambitious but abrasive, successful but unlikable. They are punished for the same qualities that elevate their male counterparts.”
Indeed, performance reviews bear this out. A 2024 Textio study on language bias in performance reviews revealed that 56% of women have been described as ‘unlikeable’ (compared to 16% of men) and 88% of high-performing women have received personality-related feedback (compared to 12% of high-performing men). That personality critique is also gendered, with 28% of women being labeled ‘opinionated’ (versus 4% of men) and 22% of women being labeled ‘abrasive’ (versus 2% of men).
Zuckerberg’s call for more masculine energy in corporate culture could thus be career-limiting for women who are already penalized for demonstrating these traits.
The Shift in Content Moderation
These moves coincide with Meta’s announcement of looser moderation policies, allowing language previously deemed discriminatory. Under the new policies, users can call gay and trans people mentally ill, refer to women as household objects, and share beliefs that certain professions—such as military, law enforcement, and teaching—have inherent limitations based on gender or sexual orientation.
Zuckerberg justified this shift by claiming that previous rules were “out of touch with mainstream discourse.” But while it may be true that bigoted discourse is on the rise, catering to it could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of escalating hate speech.
Compounding these concerns is the fact that, for months, Meta prevented teens from searching LGBTQ-related content. Taken together, the relaxed stance on discriminatory language—along with suppression of supportive content—could have a serious negative impact on marginalized populations, especially young people.
Further, the recent removal of Meta’s fact-checking operations may accelerate the spread of biased or incorrect information about women, people of color, LGBTQ+ communities and immigrants.
Meta’s trifecta of policy changes—abandoning DEI initiatives, promoting ‘masculine energy,’ and relaxing content moderation—represents more than just isolated corporate decisions. Collectively, they signal a concerning departure from the responsibility that companies of Meta’s scale and influence have toward employees, users, and society at large.
In an era when digital platforms shape both workplace culture and public discourse, these decisions risk creating an environment that is more hostile to marginalized groups, both online and off. For a platform that connects billions of people, this retreat from inclusivity and shift toward unchecked speech could have profound consequences—ones that may reverberate far beyond Meta’s own walls.