Meta’s Moral Collapse in Code: How a $1 Trillion Company Codified Predation, Racism, and Lies into AI Policy

Meta’s AI rules allowed bots to flirt with kids, push racist lies, and spread false medical claims, proving self-policing is a public safety hazard.

Meta’s Moral Collapse in Code: How a $1 Trillion Company Codified Predation, Racism, and Lies into AI Policy

Meta’s newly exposed “GenAI: Content Risk Standards” reads less like a responsible governance document and more like the depraved diary of a corporation that has forgotten the meaning of the word “unacceptable.”

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just “bad optics” or “messy rollout.” This is codified permission, reviewed and approved by Meta’s legal, public policy, and engineering teams, including its chief ethicist, for AI chatbots to:

• Engage in romantic and sensual conversations with children.

• Describe minors’ bodies in terms of physical attractiveness.

• Produce racist “intelligence” screeds arguing that Black people are dumber than white people.

• Invent false medical information about public figures, so long as they slap on a half-hearted disclaimer.

This isn’t a bug. It was written into the rules.

The Predator’s Loophole

According to Meta’s own guidelines, it was “acceptable” for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old: “Every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply.”

That is grooming language. That is predatory framing. That is precisely the kind of verbal manipulation actual child predators use to erode boundaries and normalize abuse. And it didn’t slip in by accident; it was explicitly approved in a document more than 200 pages long.

Meta now claims this was “erroneous” and “inconsistent with our policies.” Translation: We only deleted it after Reuters caught us.

Weaponizing Pseudoscience and Hate

Buried in the same rulebook: a carve-out that allows Meta AI to create “statements that demean people based on their protected characteristics” so long as it doesn’t go so far as dehumanizing them. In practice, that meant it was perfectly fine for the AI to write a paragraph claiming Black people are inherently less intelligent than white people, citing long-debunked IQ pseudoscience, as long as it avoided outright slurs.

That is not content moderation. That is laundering white supremacist talking points through corporate AI, with a legalistic wink.

Lies as a Feature, Not a Flaw

The rules also explicitly permit the generation of false medical claims, again, with a little “this is not true” disclaimer. It is hard to overstate the recklessness of an AI, embedded in products used by billions, that can produce fabricated medical accusations about real living people on demand. In the hands of bad actors, this is a disinformation weapon, preloaded and ready to fire.

A Governance Failure Measured in Billions

Mark Zuckerberg is spending hundreds of billions to build AI as Meta’s future growth engine. That future now comes preloaded with legal, moral, and reputational rot, because these weren’t edge cases that “slipped through,” they were systemic allowances written into policy.

The standards weren’t the “ideal” outputs, the document notes. No kidding. But they were permissible. This means that someone, somewhere in Meta’s decision-making process, weighed the reputational, legal, and human risks and decided it was acceptable.

The Pattern We’ve Seen Before

This is not the first time Meta has been criticized for prioritizing engagement over human safety. From amplifying political disinformation to enabling genocide in Myanmar to ignoring internal warnings about Instagram’s impact on teen mental health, the company’s operating principle has been chillingly consistent: if it drives growth, we’ll deal with the fallout later.

Now, they’ve operationalized that same amoral calculus in generative AI.

The Call That Needs to Come

It’s time for regulators, not PR departments, to decide what “unacceptable” means in the AI era. We have the evidence, in Meta’s own words, that without external guardrails, billion-dollar AI investments will normalize predation, launder racism, and treat falsehood as an acceptable product feature.

Meta’s internal fix is not enough. They’ve already proven that their “policies” are only as strong as the next exposé.

Until there are real consequences—financial, legal, and criminal—for codifying harm into the very DNA of these systems, we should expect more of the same.

Meta’s AI policy document isn’t just a scandal. It’s a blueprint for why unregulated corporate AI is a danger to public safety, democracy, and basic human dignity.

In My Opinion

Meta has long demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to safeguard the public interest, and this latest revelation cements that reputation. Trust is not just about intentions; it’s about proven patterns of behavior. Meta’s track record is a ledger of systemic disregard: amplifying hate speech during elections, enabling atrocities abroad, burying internal research on Instagram’s harm to teenagers, and stonewalling regulators until public outrage forces minimal concessions.

Now, we learn that the same company has codified into policy the permissibility of AI interactions that are predatory toward children, steeped in racial pseudoscience, and permissive of outright fabrications. This is not a glitch or a rogue engineer; it’s a governance failure written into the rulebook, approved by leadership, and only amended after investigative exposure.

When a trillion-dollar corporation treats child safety, racial dignity, and factual accuracy as negotiable depending on “engagement” potential, the conclusion is unavoidable: Meta is architecting harm as a business model.

A company with this history, these incentives, and this degree of moral vacancy cannot be left to set its own boundaries. The horror isn’t only in what these policies allow, but also in knowing that without external enforcement, Meta will continue to find new ways to monetize what should be unthinkable.

SOURCE: META & Their Ethical Position