Meta Starts Blocking Links to Competitors

Meta's commitment to free expression is under scrutiny as the company blocks links to a rival platform just days after pledging to reduce censorship.

Facebook, owned by Meta, has been actively removing links to Pixelfed, a decentralised alternative to Instagram, marking them as "spam" and deleting them almost instantly.

The issue was first flagged by AJ Sadauskas on Bluesky, a social media competitor to X (formerly known as Twitter) founded by Jack Dorsey.

Sadauskas shared screenshots showing Pixelfed links disappearing "within seconds" on Facebook.

Fellow Bluesky user Johan Vandevelde noted that the automatic deletions extended beyond Pixelfed, affecting other platforms competing with Meta's social media empire.

Vandevelde said:

“Someone was asking for [Facebook] alternatives and I gave a link to Mastodon. My comment was immediately removed, also because of 'spam.'"

Here Comes Competitor, Pixelfed

Pixelfed, an open-source, community-funded, and decentralised image-sharing platform, operates on ActivityPub—the same protocol powering Mastodon and other federated services.

Its largest server, Pixelfed.social, launched in 2018 but has seen a surge in user signups following Meta's recent policy changes, which now permit users to label LGBTQ+ individuals as "mentally ill" and signal a broader shift to the right.

Additionally, Meta and Instagram's increasing reliance on AI-generated content has driven more users toward Pixelfed.

Amidst this growing interest, Pixelfed announced the upcoming launch of its iOS app and reported "unprecedented levels of traffic" to its platform.

Over the weekend, Pixelfed’s creator, Daniel Supernault, introduced a "Declaration of Fundamental Rights and Principles for Ethical Digital Platforms," advocating for privacy, dignity, and fairness in online spaces.

The open-source charter—adopted by Pixelfed and available for other platforms—outlines key principles, including the right to privacy, protection from surveillance, safeguards against hate speech, strong protections for vulnerable communities, and data portability to empower users.

Supernault wrote on Mastodon:

“Pixelfed is a lot of things, but one thing it is not, is an opportunity for VC or others to ruin the vibe. I've turned down VC funding and will not inject advertising of any form into the project. Pixelfed is for the people, period.”

Meta's Double Standard —Hypocrisy Much?

On 7 January, Meta released a statement titled "More Speech and Fewer Mistakes," authored by Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan.

The announcement featured a five-minute video from Mark Zuckerberg, in which he pledged to return the company to its "roots around free expression.”

Meta vowed to scale back moderation, eliminate third-party fact-checkers, and implement a community-driven notes system similar to X's.

The policy shift was met with praise from US President-elect Donald Trump, who credited his own past criticisms of Zuckerberg—including threats of imprisonment—as a possible catalyst for the change.

Trump told reporters during a wide-ranging news conference:

"Honestly, I think they have come a long way, Meta, Facebook."

However, internal backlash followed, with Meta Oversight Board co-chair Michael McConnell accusing Zuckerberg of "buckling to political pressure" ahead of Trump's inauguration.

While Meta's decision to block Pixelfed links could be framed as an effort to curb direct competition rather than suppress speech outright, it contradicts the company's newly declared commitment to free expression.

As The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board observed, Meta's shift appears more about political maneuvering than a genuine embrace of free speech.

The Editorial Board noted:

“Such changes may be in part motivated by Meta''s desire to mend fences with Republicans who will soon control Washington and head off regulation. But Mr. Zuckerberg no doubt is also responding to the message that voters sent by electing Mr. Trump.”

By censoring rivals while pledging openness, is Meta protecting its user base—or exposing a double standard?