The watchdog said its analysis of nearly eight million Facebook comments directed at 100 members of Congress found a significant rise in threatening and abusive content during the six months following Meta’s policy changes compared with the previous six-month period.

According to the report, violent threats against lawmakers from both major political parties, including explicit calls for murder, increased fourfold after the moderation rollback. Harassment more than doubled, while racist and gender-based abuse also rose substantially.

The CCDH said the increase extended beyond lawmakers, with comments advocating violence against President Donald Trump also rising after the changes. The organization argued that reduced enforcement of platform rules against threats, hate speech and harassment contributed to a more hostile online environment.

“When platforms stop enforcing their own rules against threats, hate, and harassment, they become complicit in normalizing intimidation and harassment of elected officials,” CCDH Chief Executive Imran Ahmed said in a statement accompanying the report.

Meta disputed suggestions that harmful content had increased on its platforms. A company spokesperson said Meta regularly publishes transparency reports tracking policy violations and maintained that the prevalence of hateful conduct did not rise during 2025.

The company said it had not received the CCDH report before publication and therefore could not specifically address its findings.

The debate comes amid broader concerns about the safety of public officials in the United States. Lawmakers, election officials and other public figures have reported increasing levels of threats and intimidation in recent years, prompting renewed scrutiny of online platforms and their role in moderating harmful content.

Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah described the findings as troubling, particularly against a backdrop of recent politically motivated violence. He said reductions in oversight of violent, hateful and harassing content could contribute to an increase in such behavior online.

Meta’s moderation changes followed a broader shift in policy that included ending partnerships with independent fact-checkers in the United States in January 2025 and adopting a Community Notes system that relies on users to add context to disputed claims. The approach mirrors a model popularized by Elon Musk’s social media platform X.

The policy adjustments were viewed by critics as part of a wider effort to address longstanding complaints from conservative groups that fact-checking systems restricted free expression and disproportionately affected right-leaning viewpoints.

Meta also eased some restrictions governing discussions related to gender and sexual identity, drawing criticism from advocacy organizations that warned the changes could increase exposure to harmful and discriminatory content.

The CCDH report is likely to intensify debate over the balance between free expression and platform safety as policymakers, technology companies and civil society groups continue to grapple with the impact of online speech on democratic institutions and public officials.

Lawyers representing X Corp. acknowledged in Federal Court that the company contravened Australia’s Online Safety Act after regulators found the platform had failed to adequately respond to a formal request seeking details on its child protection and anti-exploitation processes.

“The respondent admits that it contravened the Act,” Christopher Tran, counsel for the eSafety Commissioner, told the court, adding that the company remained in noncompliance for 38 days.

The case stemmed from a A$610,500 ($437,000) penalty issued in October 2023 against the company formerly known as Twitter after regulators said it provided insufficient responses to approximately 25 questions concerning its systems for detecting and preventing child exploitation material online.

X initially challenged the fine, arguing the company’s corporate identity had changed following Musk’s $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in 2022. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner later launched separate proceedings to recover the unpaid penalty.

Federal Court Judge Michael Wheelahan increased the amount payable to A$650,000 and ordered X to pay an additional A$100,000 toward the regulator’s legal costs.

The ruling marks another legal setback for Musk’s platform in Australia, where the billionaire entrepreneur and the eSafety Commissioner have repeatedly clashed over content moderation, online harms and regulatory oversight.

X lawyer Perry Herzfeld described the matter as relating to “historic issues” surrounding the timing of information supplied to authorities during what he characterized as a period of operational transition within the company.

“The contravening conduct took place during a period of change and transition for the company,” Herzfeld said during proceedings.Tran acknowledged the regulator had not identified direct harm resulting from the delayed disclosures but argued that failure to provide information impeded the regulator’s ability to carry out statutory responsibilities under the Online Safety Act.

The dispute also represented one of the remaining unresolved regulatory matters for X following its integration earlier this year into Musk’s broader technology conglomerate, SpaceX, ahead of a planned public offering.

Indonesia’s temporary block on Grok highlights growing global focus on responsible AI use, digital ethics, and stronger safeguards to protect users in the online space.

Indonesia has temporarily blocked access to Grok, an artificial intelligence chatbot developed by xAI, as authorities review concerns related to the generation of sexualised images. The move reflects the government’s emphasis on digital responsibility and user protection in rapidly evolving AI ecosystems.

Officials said the restriction is a precautionary step aimed at preventing the spread of harmful or inappropriate content online. Regulators stressed that the decision is not a rejection of innovation but a call for stronger safeguards and accountability.

Indonesia’s action places it at the forefront of global efforts to regulate artificial intelligence responsibly. Governments across regions are increasingly examining how generative AI tools manage content and protect vulnerable users.

The Communications and Digital Ministry stated that non-consensual sexual deepfakes pose serious risks to human dignity and digital security. Authorities emphasized the importance of ensuring technology aligns with ethical standards and societal values.

xAI has already begun tightening controls on image generation features. The company announced restrictions on image creation and editing, limiting access as it works to strengthen safety mechanisms.

Industry observers view these steps as part of a broader learning phase for generative AI platforms. As tools scale globally, developers are under growing pressure to refine safeguards and content moderation systems.

Indonesia has also invited representatives from the platform’s parent company to engage in discussions. The dialogue is expected to focus on compliance, user safety, and long-term cooperation between regulators and technology firms.

The government’s approach highlights collaboration rather than confrontation. Officials have signaled openness to restoring access once sufficient protections are demonstrated and regulatory concerns are addressed.

Indonesia’s digital regulations are shaped by cultural, social, and legal considerations. The country maintains strict rules against online content deemed obscene, reflecting strong public expectations around online conduct.

Experts say the temporary block underscores the importance of trust in artificial intelligence. Public confidence depends on platforms showing they can prevent misuse while delivering innovation responsibly.

Global technology leaders are increasingly recognizing that regulation and innovation must advance together. Clear standards can help AI tools gain wider acceptance and long-term sustainability.

The situation also reflects a global shift toward proactive AI governance. Rather than reacting after harm occurs, regulators are seeking early intervention and preventative safeguards.

Developers see these moments as opportunities to improve systems and align with international norms. Enhanced transparency and accountability can strengthen partnerships with governments worldwide.

Indonesia’s decision has sparked wider conversations about digital ethics and platform responsibility. Policymakers and technologists alike are reassessing how AI tools interact with social values.

As AI adoption accelerates, countries are exploring balanced frameworks that encourage innovation while protecting users. Responsible deployment is increasingly viewed as a competitive advantage rather than a constraint.

The temporary restriction may ultimately contribute to stronger AI standards globally. Lessons learned from this process could shape future policies and platform design.

Overall, Indonesia’s action signals a constructive step toward safer digital spaces. With cooperation and improved safeguards, AI tools like Grok can continue to evolve in ways that benefit users and society.