Meta under fire for removing internal comments criticising UFC President Dana White's appointment to board

Meta Platforms is under scrutiny after reportedly deleting internal comments from employees criticising the appointment of UFC President Dana White to its board of directors. The controversy has sparked internal unrest, especially as it clashes with CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent commitment to reducing content moderation on Meta’s platforms in favour of “free expression."

The tension surfaced after Zuckerberg introduced three new board members — Dana White, John Elkann, and Charlie Songhurst — via Meta’s internal communication platform, Workplace. While some employees responded with lighthearted remarks, others raised concerns over White’s controversial past, including a viral video showing him slapping his wife in a nightclub, for which he faced no legal or professional consequences.

Employee concerns over White’s appointment

Criticism wasn’t limited to White’s personal history. Employees also cited broader controversies surrounding UFC, including a civil court ruling ordering fighter Conor McGregor to pay damages in a sexual assault case, a decision currently under appeal. Many questioned Meta’s vetting process for such influential roles, with one employee calling White’s celebration on the board “disheartening.”

The concerns extended beyond personal ethics to Meta’s priorities as a company. Employees expressed frustration that figures with controversial pasts were being embraced while legitimate internal dissent seemed to be discouraged.

More from Tech

Musk’s Grok broke X rules? Reports say AI chatbot briefly suspended by microblogging site Nvidia, AMD to give US 15% cut from China chip sales revenue

Moderation policies spark backlash

Meta’s Internal Community Relations team removed several critical posts about the board appointments, citing the company’s Community Engagement Expectations (CEE) policy. This policy is designed to maintain a respectful workplace and prohibits content deemed insulting or antagonistic toward colleagues or board members. However, the decision to enforce this policy on these posts has drawn backlash, with employees feeling their right to voice legitimate concerns was being suppressed.

Screenshots shared by employees revealed growing frustration. Some questioned why critical comments were being deleted, while others accused Meta of fostering a “chilling” environment where dissent is stifled in the name of workplace harmony.

Contradictions in free speech commitments

This internal moderation controversy coincided with Zuckerberg’s announcement of changes to content moderation policies on Meta’s platforms. The new approach promises to ease restrictions on divisive topics like immigration and gender, with an emphasis on “free expression.” However, employees pointed out a stark contradiction between this external messaging and Meta’s internal practices.

Some questioned whether the push for “more speech” would extend to employee discussions or whether criticism of company decisions would continue to fall under the umbrella of “disruptive content.”

In response, Meta spokesperson Tracy Clayton defended the moderation actions, stating that internal and external policies are distinct and that the CEE exists to minimise workplace disruptions. Clayton also clarified that not all critical comments were removed, only those deemed to violate the policy.

Editor’s Picks

1

Meta's updated hate speech policy now allows users to say LGBTQ people are 'mentally ill' 2

Zuckerberg ends fact-checking on Meta's Facebook, Instagram: Why it could lead to a flood of misinformation

Despite these explanations, the incident has cast a spotlight on Meta’s internal culture and its handling of employee feedback, raising broader questions about its commitment to fostering open dialogue both inside and outside the company.