Per the change log in <a href="https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/privacy-violations/" rel="nofollow">https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/p...</a> the bracketed language below, providing for exceptions for newsworthiness, was removed from Meta’s policy on June 27, 2024.<p>> {Except in limited cases of newsworthiness, }content claimed by the poster or confirmed to come from a hacked source, regardless of whether the affected person is a public figure or a private individual.<p>Coincidentally, this was the exact same day that, per the indictment (pg. 27, <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25176674/iran.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25176674/iran.pdf</a>), Iranian hackers allegedly reached out to try to share the documents in question with campaign officials.<p>It’s exceedingly fast for a leak about the hack to have turned into legal language changes, and it’s unlikely the events were directly related, unless there’s more to the story. But this is also in the context of Meta’s shutdown of other transparency tools: <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Meta%20crowdtangle&sort=byDate&type=story" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...</a><p>In isolation, it’s perhaps good that Meta is not setting itself as an arbiter of newsworthiness, if the rule is applied evenly and equally to future hacks of various parties. But the rule is too new, even setting aside coincidences, to know if it will be.