Who can say it? (Part 3)

certain things can happen if you don't know your grammar

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

Earlier this month, shortly after Meta announced a relaxation of its hate-speech rules and suspension of fact-checking for Facebook and Instagram, The Intercept leaked examples of newly permissible language from the company’s internal training materials. Going forward, hate speech like “immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit” and “gays are freaks” are now non-violating on those platforms. This expansion of non-violation also includes trans people, with the transmisogynist “tranny” now no longer considered a “designated slur”¹². As others have noted, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to be following the lead of Elon Musk, who loosened the rules around hate speech on X (formerly Twitter), except for the word “cis,” which is now considered a slur.

While the targets of these updates are crystal clear, the language justifying our violation is mostly gibberish. Meta’s propagandistic new “Community Standards” are poorly written, leading to confusing and even contradictory “rules” that will ultimately provide the company with more cover for arbitrary enforcement. On Meta, while “allegations of stupidity, intellectual capacity, and mental illness³” are not permitted, “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation” are. Why? Because of “political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like ‘weird.’” (What is this final clause trying to communicate???) On Meta, accusing someone of mental illness is not allowed—unless you are accusing them of being trans or gay (given “common non-serious usage of words like “weird,”” which as we’ve established means nothing). Of course, “mocking people for having or experiencing a disease” is simultaneously not permitted, so even if we were to accept the ableist denigration of mental and physical illness, or disability’s conflation with being trans or gay, by Meta’s own internal logic these things are unacceptable.

In Vittorio de Sica’s Umberto D. (1952)—an Italian neorealist drama about an elderly man struggled to stay housed—the eponymous character gently chastises the girl who works as a maid in his pensione for neglecting her schoolwork. “Certain things can happen if you don’t know your grammar,” he tells her. “Everyone takes advantage of the ignorant.”

Unfortunately, knowing my grammar doesn’t protect me, or anyone, from these so-called Community Standards. While it’s clear that the people who wrote them have no respect for language, it’s unclear how much of this disrespect is strategic, or merely the side effect of an anti-intellectualism so entrenched that the Kafka-esque is now, if not unintentional, then comfortably unconscious. What percentage of these new rules are dog whistles? Parapraxes? The verbal slop served up by dozens of stupid cooks (and their chatbots) crowded into a single stupid kitchen? With social media billionaires like Zuckerberg and Trump—who have already facilitated union-busting, election fraud, genocides, and many other evils—it doesn’t really matter, does it?

Reminder that I’ll send you a free month of subscriber-only DAVID content if you screenshot your donation to any of fundraiser for Palestinians trying to survive within Gaza or relocate to safety. Gaza Funds is one place to get started.

Thank you for reading and sharing my weekly newsletter. You can also support me by buying my book. Find me on Twitter and Instagram.

1. Whether this word may be applied to minors is unclear. The leaked materials say that the following is no longer subject to removal: “Look at that tranny (beneath photo of 17 year old girl).” However, Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said that this was a mistake.

2. People who aren’t transfeminine can catch strays—I know I do—but we can’t fail to point out that this word is designed to humiliate women specifically.

3. One wonders what “allegations of intellectual capacity” could possibly mean…