Meta yesterday said it would wind-down its independent fact-checking programme, lift restrictions on certain speech and reverse changes which limited the reach of political content.

It has also revised its hateful conduct policy to remove rules against comparing women to “household objects or property” or denying the existence of LGBT+ people.

The policy now also expressly states that members are allowed to post “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation”.

Joel Kaplan, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, said the changes were made because the company believed it had “gone too far” in moderating content across its platforms.

However, the Hope and Courage Collective (HCC), an Irish organisation which campaigns against hate speech, has accused Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg of “firmly aligning himself with a dangerous authoritarian regime”.

Executive director Edel McGinley said: “Algorithms take people down the river of hate, leaving truth and compassion to catch up.

“Facebook removing fact-checking and allowing lies to spread unchallenged poses a direct threat to our communities. This move will limit the space where democratic ideals like freedom of expression, truth-telling and safety can exist online.

“We need to view social media as the tobacco industries of our time, a huge industry which fights regulation and covers up harm in order to protect profits. It was brave political leadership that protected the public then and we need brave political leadership to protect us now.

“We can’t leave digital infrastructure in the hands of billionaire monopolists. Asking companies to do the right thing will never work — we need democratic regulation.”

She continued: “In the next programme for the government, it’s time to turn off the toxic engagement-based recommender systems by default.

“Already, elected representatives are proposing protecting children and young people from digital harm. This is a good first step, and shows a recognition that these platforms can be dangerous if not properly regulated.

“But we need to do more, to protect everyone in our communities from the harms profit-driven algorithms can cause.”