When Meta rolled back its content moderation policies in early 2025, executives framed it as a win for free speech. A year later, the numbers tell a different story: violent threats against members of Congress quadrupled, hate speech quadrupled, and bullying doubled.
That’s according to a new report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which analyzed roughly 8 million Facebook comments posted on the pages of 100 US House members — the 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats with the most followers — across the six months before and after Meta’s policy changes.
The Numbers Are Stark
Comments violating Meta’s own rules on violent threats jumped from 1,800 to 7,600. Hate speech went from 6,900 to 30,000. Bullying and harassment comments rose from 15,700 to 39,900. Threats against President Trump more than doubled, with researchers flagging many as potential felony offenses.
The abuse wasn’t partisan. Both Republican and Democrat lawmakers saw the spike. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) and Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) were among those targeted with racist and gendered abuse that Meta’s systems left up. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who received the highest volume of abusive comments in the study, has publicly cited threats to her life as a reason for stepping back from public life.
Meta’s Enforcement Collapsed Alongside the Rules
The surge in harmful content tracks almost exactly with Meta’s own decision to cut proactive content moderation enforcement by roughly half, according to the company’s transparency reports from 2025. In other words, the problem isn’t just that the rules got looser — it’s that Meta stopped enforcing even the rules it kept.
Meta pushed back on the findings. A spokesperson told WIRED the company “regularly issues public reports tracking violating content” and that “the prevalence of hateful conduct did not increase throughout 2025.” When WIRED shared specific examples from the report, Meta declined to comment on them. Hours before publication, many of those examples disappeared from Facebook.
Real-World Consequences
This isn’t an abstract content moderation debate. Capitol Police cited increased threats when requesting a $1 billion budget increase in March. Lawmakers are canceling town halls or moving them offline. Election officials are leaving their jobs. As CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed put it: “Representatives are saying in public the fear of being targeted shapes how they vote.”
Nina Jankowicz, CEO of the American Sunlight Project, points out the uncomfortable business logic: “Threats and abuse perform well, as do the responses to the threats and abuse. They keep users scrolling and keep eyeballs on ads.” By pulling back on moderation, platforms save money, boost engagement, and align politically with an administration that frames content moderation as censorship.
What Happens Next
Senator John Curtis (R-UT), a member of the Commerce Committee, acknowledged the link between reduced oversight and increased harm — a rare bipartisan data point in a polarized landscape. Whether that translates into legislative pressure on Meta remains to be seen, especially as the company prepares for its IPO.
The CCDH report adds to a growing body of evidence that “more speech” policies on platforms with billions of users don’t exist in a vacuum. When the guardrails come down, the most harmful content fills the space — and the people paying the price are the ones who showed up to do public service.
