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.