Meta Now Lets Users Say Gay and Trans People Have 'Mental Illness'

My mom believes the bullshit about LGBTQ being a mental illness. Can't wait for it to get worse! Thanks Facebook!
- I find homophobia to be a mental illness. I mean it’s right there in the name.

- At a certain level ($10 million?) they stop being a symbiote and becomes a parasite.
- The mental patients both own and run the asylum.
- No what you do is rapidly freeze them and then use a little file to break them apart.
  
  Is this the recipe for Torgo's Executive Powder?
- Well Zuck is preparing a quarantine compound for himself in Hawaii

Billionaires have mental illness and have negatively affected me and society as a whole more than any gay or trans person ever could.
- Immense wealth is not compatible with the moral life. It’s also not compatible with Christianity, but I don’t think any of them truly care about religion. The drive for greed should be a mental illness, especially when it’s at the cost of empathy.
  
  "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
- But what if the two penises touch? And they like it?

What do you mean "now?" I've been seeing people say that for years.
- Yup, and if you reported it as hate speech they'd review it and say it doesn't go against community guidelines.
  
  And then YOU get banned for “abusing the report feature”.
  Reported a blatantly bigoted post saying that all gays should be burnt alive and I got a 30 day account suspension.
- It's just they're updating their terms now that Trump is in power. Hate started to rise since the beginning of GenAI on the platform, I highly suspect due to the backlash from socially progressive people against it, and techbros didn't appreciate that. They're going mask off now after the elections.
  
  Yeah the left wants things that actually hinder the oligarchs, the right wants to complain about them but will settle for people they don't like being hurt. Tech companies understand that.
  There's also the fact that the bay area has spent quite a while having the sort of people who love to treat equal rights as a thought exercise

Zuck is one of humanity's cancers
- Maybe the next Luigi can fix the Z problem
  
  might as well kill the tr*mp and the couch fucker

It's worth noting you're only allowed to insultingly say someone has a mental illness in relation to their gender or sexual orientation.
Do not post .... Insults, including those about: ... Mental characteristics, including but not limited to allegations of stupidity, intellectual capacity, and mental illness, and unsupported comparisons between PC groups on the basis of inherent intellectual capacity. We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like “weird.”
Source: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/hateful-conduct/
Edit: and the changelog is a hoot.
- So it's ok to say that zuckerfucker developed mental illnesses due to excessive zoophile orgies
- Fuck Mark Zuckerberg, evil motherfucker.
- Rich men have a mental illness and are weird.

As far as internet content goes, hate is winning. All the major social media platforms have been overrun by sexist, racist, LGBTQphobic commentary. And these platforms will simply follow the money, pushing hate content via algorithms as good people leave the platforms.
- And these platforms will simply follow the money
  This, remember that every single pride sponsorship and rainbow coloured logo was approved by a marketing department after extensive market research deeming it to be profitable
  
  And only broadcast in subregions of their market where they know it's a good PR move.
- Make two Reddit accounts, one saying “I love trans people” and one saying “I hate trans people”. I bet the latter will get banned first.
- This couldn't be further from the truth.

When we start to say "bad things" about the oligarchy watch hoe fast they shut that down
- The problem with western oligarchs is that they rarely step foot on public land ....so it's really hard to track their schedules let alone get a shoot shot off.
  
  A fun non-lethal approach is to just try to sabotage their planes while they're on the ground. Shooting a hole in the window of a flying aircraft, generally frowned upon. Shooting a hole in a billionaire's sky yacht while it's empty in it's hangar...well that's just property damage that happens to prevent them from poisoning the atmosphere.

Mark was never a source of good in this world.
- Never has been:
  According to the text messages, Zuckerberg wrote, "Yeah, so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard, just ask me. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS."
  In response, a friend inquired, "What? How did you manage to obtain all that?"
  To which Zuckerberg callously replied, "People just submitted it. I don't know why they 'trust me.' Dumb f****."

They put Dana White who heads the UFC on the board, all because Zuckerberg did Jujitsu... Jujitsu and the UFC has stange political affiliations to chechen forces Putin sometimes employs.
They're a hyper masculine male traditionalist culture. So it all ties back into that BS.
They call it "Sportswashing" - using Jujitsu to slide extremist politics onto someone. Zuckerberg fell tor it hook line and sinker. Libertarian to pro Russia pipeline. Anti-woke fascism in practice.
- As a MMA enjoyer, Dana White being put in charge of anything is fucking scary. He is an extremely evil and ruthless man. He is so open about treating fighters like complete shit saying "its better to keep them hungry because then they are more motivated to preform".
  Dana is at the forefront of Saudi sportswashing and pushing right wing culture on young men. He hooked trump up with Nelk and got Trump infront of massive influencers and their audiences.
  Hearing Zuck speak longform a few years ago I actually thought he was left leaning and a reasonable guy. But that was bullshit, the guys morals are about as strong as a wet paper bag.
- because Zuckerberg did Jujitsu
  LMFAO that coordination failure of a leek I have to see that.
  I can't believe this exists. Watch carefully how Lex Fridman (yes that one) goes to great lengths to not kill Zuckerberg in training.
  As to martial arts in general and assholery, I'll just leave this here.

Fuck Meta and Zuck. I wish I could stop using WhatsApp, as every other Meta product is out of my devices already.
- I wish our government actually regulated these corporations so they are not able to have a tentacle in so many essential technologies.
  All of the symptoms of the crushing power of techbro oligarchs are directly tied to failures of govt to regulate.
  
  This has been true since “sign in with Facebook” became a thing.
  I think with Brazil banning Xitter, and I reckon Starmer might too given how much Musk has attacked him, it might be come more of a thing.
- Every journey needs a first step.
  Try to convince some of your contacts to use something else. Repeat until a large chunk of your contacts are available outside WhatsApp, and make yourself increasingly harder to access through WhatsApp and increasingly easier to access on your preferred alternative.

Let's for a second assume it is a mental illness, how does that make the people feel who are experiencing it? Do they feel loved and understood? If you suffered from the same mental illness where the most effective treatment is tolerance and acceptance, how would you like to be treated?
- It’s America, love and understanding are not things we do here.
  
  Honestly, I think you'd be surprised. I live in a very red state, and my work participates in the local Pride parades (free rainbow shirts, and a tent), and I see a lot more pride flags in my neighborhood than Trump flags. Granted, my company is in a liberal, but my neighborhood is in a very conservative area (usually 70-80% for the GOP candidate).
  Of course, outward displays don't mean as much as actual relationships, but it's a lot better than people make it out to be.
  We are pretty far from ideal though, but we're largely moving forward (two steps up and one step back).
- Let’s for a second assume it is a mental illness, how does that make the people feel who are experiencing it? Do they feel loved and understood?
  "Hate the sin, love the sinner" has been the historical approach far-right evangelicals use to gull parents into conversation therapy for their kids.
  Conservatives have adopted much of the same liberalish compassionate language up top and horrifyingly brutal physical, emotional, and sexual abuse on the back end for drug rehabilitation and prison reform.
  The American idea of love and understanding is to brainwash them into compliance with social norms, while insisting the torture they're inflicting is a kindness.
  
  “Hate the sin, love the sinner”
  The problem is that people don't actually do the second, they replace "love" with "pity." Pity isn't love, it's intolerance. If you truly love someone, you won't care whether they sin or not, you'll just love them for who they are and want them to be the happiest they can be.
  Whether homosexuality is a sin shouldn't be relevant at all, sin is between an individual and their god, especially in Christianity.
  The problem is that people justify their intolerance by misinterpreting or misapplying phrases like these. They think things like conversion therapy is a demonstration of love, when in fact it's a demonstration of brutal intolerance.
  The root of the problem here is intolerance, not the words we use to describe something.
  
  It should be noted that the framing of it as a sin was after the medical community accepted its not a mental illness. Before that it was "you're sick and need help".
- I've encountered people disagreeing with ASD ending with D, because people are born, live and die autistic, and also autistic people usually understand each other well enough, it's with non-autistic people where their communication impairment shows, mostly. And rigidity of thought, sensory issues and such can be arguably considered difference, not impairment.
  So yes, "mental illness" is an unpleasant thing to say, especially about things which are not developed and treated during one's life.
  But this is simply not what the issue is about.
  The issue is about moderation of social platforms, that one must choose between "the platform" moderating content by this or that policy.
  But in fact this is all gaslighting, bullshit, scam. Because in the era of web forums there were no platforms at all, and moderation was still a thing. Due to bigger load on moderators and those being from the not so huge number of active users of some forum, moderator's rights could be customized very precisely, say, certain kind of discussion certain Alice can be trusted to moderate, and some other kind of discussion not really (due to having a strong opinion), or maybe there's Bob who can be allowed to make warnings and approve new registrations, but can't be allowed to delete messages and ban users.
  
  I’ve encountered people disagreeing with ASD ending with D
  But shouldn't it though? According to Webster on disorder:
  an abnormal physical or mental condition
  And abnormal:
  deviating from the normal or average
  So something being labeled a "disorder" doesn't mean it's "bad," it just means it's different from average, and in many cases a cause of distress or discomfort. Not all disorders need to be fixed, they can often be treated by simply accepting them and working around any issues it causes.
  The problem here has nothing to do with definitions though, it has to do with harassment and intolerance. Whether being LGBTQ+ or on the autism spectrum is a disorder or not is completely irrelevant, what matters is how we treat each other. If you're harassing another person, you're in the wrong, regardless of what the other person is, has, or has done.
  Again, let's go back to Webster about "harass":
  to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
  The law (largely irrelevant in SM though, up to a certain point) defines harassment as having real damages and intent to inflict harm. If you say being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness because you know it'll cause harm, then you're guilty of harassment and should be ejected from the platform. If you say it because it's topically relevant and you're not intending to cause harm but it happens, then I argue you aren't guilty of harassment (and you should probably apologize).
  The real issue here is intended and actual impact of statements. It doesn't matter if your speech is factual, what matters is the intent and the result of that speech.
  I'm not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or any form of therapist, so I'm not going to take a hard stance on whether any given thing is a disorder or not, I'm going to stick to answering my above questions. And in my case, accepting LGBTQ+ and people on the autism spectrum costs me exactly nothing and helps improve outcomes for them. So why shouldn't I do that? What harm could possibly come from me being nice?

Billionaires have a mental illness

I like how he went from the Caesar cut and bland shirt to the style of what current-day 16-20 year old guys are rockin.
And by "like," I mean that I'm glad he still looks uncanny despite how normal his new style is, because he's a POS and nobody should sympathize with him.
- Now he just looks like Andy Dick.
  
  Minus the Andy. So, just a dick.

They always did because their moderators didn’t act upon old rules anyway.

People are free to out themselves as ignorant on Meta. Technology is getting crazy.

I left facebook after years of having meta not do anything about blatant transphobia and ableism that I reported to them. I got a death threat late last year and that was the final straw for me

I guess this is what fascists consider "freedom".
Personally I would rather escape wasting my life in servitude to capital.

FB won't even do anything about the constant bombardment of scammer profiles that hit you if you post on any public group. They are always some attractive woman (stolen pics probably) with a profile that is a few months old and 1-2 posts at best. They always have the same message "I saw your profile pic! Friend me!" or some such crap.

Zuckerberg has mental illness.
- Zuckerberg has a moral defect. Evil is not a medical problem.
  
  Well, evil is a medical problem for other people, like those with profitably denied insurance claims.

?? If you go through insta reels and comments you will encounter a metric called "n words / minute", I don't think meta cared about moderation at any point

Dana White is on the Meta board as happens to be the same time.
- Wonder how much longer you'll be able to question the impact professional gambling has on the outcome of UFC matches.
- huh?
  
  Doesn't make the least bit of sense to me either?
  
  Dana White is president of the UFC. He recently got a spot in the Meta board.

Soon as Trump gets elected, the disinformation campaign could resume.
- Could?

I feel comfortable decreeing conservatives are a mental illness.
- More of a logic plague

“It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,”
I somewhat respect that statement actually.

So does Lemmy.
- 😱
- Not really, although we should.

What I want to know is who thought it was a good idea to give the kid who ate rocks at recess for attention an international platform. Hmm?
- Is this a meme I don't know?
  Zuck is extraordinarily intelligent. You don't get into Harvard as a non legacy eating rocks.
  Nor did anyone give it to him. He took it by cheating the partners that made Facebook grow in it's early years.
  
  You're correct in the second half though. It doesn't take brains to steal, see November 5 2024.

I mean... We do sometimes. 🤷🏻‍♂️
For example I have ADHD, autism and BPD.
- When people talk about "LGBTQ+ people have mental illness" they don't mean any of that.
  They mean "being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness, and these people first need to be attempted to be cured, if that fails then need to be removed from society".
  
  The problem here isn't necessarily labeling being LGBTQ+ as a mental illness, the problem is the assumed solution. I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, nor have I talked to one at length about gender or sexual orientation, but I do know that having an illness does not imply that the illness needs to be "fixed," only the discomfort associated with the illness needs to be addressed. Sometimes "fixing" a problem is the best solution (e.g. a broken bone, depression, etc), and sometimes accepting a problem is the best solution (e.g. blindness, autism spectrum, etc).
  You can only be cured of a mental disorder if you want to be cured. My understanding is that most LGBTQ+ don't see their divergence as something to be cured, so whether we classify it that way is irrelevant, the best treatment here is social acceptance and maybe physical alteration (hormonal therapy, surgery, etc). That has been proven time and time again, and unless someone comes up with a better solution, it's the prudent option to take.
  So I don't see being LGBTQ+ as a "problem" to be "solved," rather I see intolerance of LGBTQ+ people as a problem to be solved. LGBTQ+ people don't harm themselves or others by being the way they are, but intolerant people absolutely harm LGBTQ+ people by treating them the way they do.
- Mental disorder would be more fitting.

They always did

I thought it's widely-agreed that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. The debate lies in how to treat it—try to realign the body with the mind or the mind with the body.
- Actually that's a common misconception - while gender dysphoria is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) - it's not actually a mental disorder (similar to how the DSM includes physiological and environmental issues like Insomnia or Social Exclusion) - main reason it's there is for admin purposes and to facilitate treatment access.
  However, a condition like body dysmorphia (think Anorexia Nervosa) is considered a mental disorder because the issue is the mind incorrectly perceiving the body - therefore it can be treated using psychotherapy which enables the mind to correctly perceive the body and prevent harm.
  People who experience gender dysphoria on the other hand - actually correctly perceive their body (that's where the distress comes from) so psychotherapy doesn't work to alleviate this - as you can't therapy away an accurate perception (think gay conversion therapy)
  Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that's been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it's congruent with it's mental model which alleviates the distress.
  Hope this helps :)
  
  Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that’s been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it’s congruent with it’s mental model which alleviates the distress.
  Just because the best treatment involves physical alteration doesn't change whether it's a mental disorder. You don't classify disorders by how they're addressed, you classify them as where they occur. Whether we term it a disorder, incongruence, etc, the fact remains that the distress happens in the mind.
  That said, not all disorders (or whatever you want to call them) need to be "fixed" (i.e. made to be in line w/ the majority), they're merely a way to distinguish one group of the population from another. Sometimes the best treatment is no treatment, sometimes is physical alteration, sometimes it's medication, and sometimes it's psychotherapy.
  The average person shouldn't really care what treatment option an individual chooses to alleviate their symptoms, and the "best" option can very well vary by person. Whether we call it a "disorder" isn't the issue, the issue is the social impact of assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it). So to me, calling it a disorder should never be against any forum rules, the rules should instead focus on banning harassment, and calling it a disorder could constitute harassment given context.
- Zeezee already has a great reply. I'd also like to add that gender dysphoria isn't the same as being trans, it's possible to be trans and not have dysphoria
- It may seem like a pedantic difference but you are missing a key part of what's going on here. Nobody is challenging that gender dysphoria is a bad thing to experience... This policy is saying it's kosher to proclaim "transness is a mental illness" which means in effect that encompasses gender euphoria and all expressions of gender incongruity as symptoms of a mental illness. It's a subtle linguistic difference but one makes it possible to publicly derride trans people as being delusional or harmful to people around them or dangers to themselves and push for "curing" all transness by approaching being trans as a failure state.
- It depends on the "science of the times." Crazy concept, I know.
  It's why psychology is considered a "soft science" and doesn't deserve the authority that hard sciences have.
  
  It's a crazy concept to apply "science of the times" to only psychology, but not every other branch of science and medicine, as there are huge holes in understanding everywhere.
  I have no idea what sciences would be considered "hard" in this definition.

This has always been the case.

Okay 🤷‍♂️
EDIT They can say whatever they want. But so can you. So where's the problem?
- The problem is that people are vulnerable to disinformation and now there is little to no pushback on these platforms.
  In a world where people are expert critical thinkers with no biases and perfect rationality it wouldn't matter, but that isn't how people work in the slightest.
  
  Who gets to decide what's disinformation?
  Once upon a time, scientific consensus classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.
  This is why psychology is a soft science and not worthy of the authority afforded to hard sciences.
- The problem is that people want to censor what they don't want to see for others.
  "If I don't like it, then neither should you."
- On facebook and Twitter and others, we cannot say whatever we want. Truth is suppressed while disinformation is allowed. Saying LGBTQ+ people are mentally ill is allowed but mentioning even the word "cisgender" is suppressed. LGBTQ+ content will get removed for being "sexual content" but straight content that's equivalent will be allowed. LGBTQ+ people face repeated harrassment on these platforms, sometimes to the level of terrorism; if they don't feel safe posting about LGBTQ+ topics, they cannot say whatever they want. Hell, they get doxed but there's rarely repercussions for the doxers.
  Imagine if I spread lies about you, call you a pedophile, doxx you and then someone SWATs you; would you still feel like you can say anything?
  Equality and fairness does not exist on these social platforms.
- No, no, no. Some people can say as they choose, some cannot. In any case, we're all forced to listen to it and participate.
  
  Who's forcing you to read half baked reckons on FB?
- There is little to no repercussions for Meta.

Elon Musk is gay!
- Fuck off, no he's not, we don't want him either.
- His whole thing is procreation. Not happiness, not love, not companionship, just spreading his seed into as many women as possible. When you're rich they let you do it. He got this idea from his dad. For his dad, some of those women were his stepdaughters...so there's still time for Elon to get even grosser.

I think the big reason they are allowing it is because they got to cut the entire cost of having moderation with an external vendor. Not because they have an agenda or anything. Its pure dollars.
- Nah it's clearly ideological when you look at the details of their new moderation policies. They now allow you to call people crazy, but only if it's because they're LGBT.
  
  I don't think so. Zuck never cared about people, he's cut-throat, egotistical and money/power focussed. He wouldn't take the time for thinking about insulting the little people (non-millionaires). He's done it to encourage more users to use the platform and create disputes/content which is cold hard cash to him. Remember when they experimented with users by showing them content that would trigger them to make them interact?

It's freedom of speech. Being able to say what you want and suffer the consequences of your decisions is what it is all about.
- Except it’s not really “freedom of speech?” You can’t normally say someone is mentally ill - the verbiage is that you can specifically only call LGBT people mentally ill.
- Oh you mean like specifically disallowing people from calling someone crazy unless that person is gay or trans? How the fuck is that "free speech"?
  I can post some violent fantasy online and meta won't allow you to call me crazy for it, but if you call me crazy because you think I'm gay that's just fine?

On the bright side, if there's a boomer who only posts bad memes about how much he hates his wife, you can say he has a mental illness.
You could before, because it's true, but you still can too.

So what I see is, Meta first creates the problem of trans-metaverse by super aggressive inorganic promotion and then makes it even worse by cutting the expenses on such useless promotion. XD
L for all those who fell for it. Society eats you up (not sexually, keep your pants on) for getting mentally manipulated so easily.

If you don't let them speak up, how are we going to find the racists? They're all old so it's not like they just suddenly appeared when Obama was elected. They've been hiding and hidden. Bring the assholes into the light, and let's get out the dildo of consequence.
- You can think trans people are mentally ill without being racist.
  
  Bigotry and racism do come in multiple flavors.
  
  The venn diagram of transphobes and racists is very nearly a circle.

Looking at what's already been said I will most probably get down voted, but it should only back my words up.
People should be able to write everything they want on the internet. And I should have the right to totally ignore everything they say. So why should I become a snowflake and care about other people's opinion or think a big corporation will moderate somebody out of their platform? 🤔
- It isn't about being a snowflake and I think ppl should learn to be respectful towards each other. It would be a disservice to all of us if no one moderates the internet just look at the Andrew Tate case. There are too many ppl out there who do not understand what it means to hurt another person (regardless of reason). It is easy to ignore comments not directed at you but it becomes easily bullying which can become doxing and escalate fast, especially if you ignore it (have you not been in a school with kids/teen? Same things, it escalate until someone steps in. The teacher moderate and there are rules to not bully, it still happens but someone is on standby at least).
  Watching other ppl hurting someone is a bad experience for everyone not just the offenders and victims.
  Facebook is such a hateful place to be at that I am never logged in there.
- Because words have consequences. It's not just about "snowflakes", it's also misinformation. Do you not remember what happened during the Covid lockdowns? Do you not remember how Trump gained power?
  You are of course free to ignore everything anyone says, unfortunately many people hang onto their every word and before you know it, being trans is now considered a mental illness by a load of people who get to make decisions about what happens to trans people when they need medical care.
- Because if you don't care they get offended.
  The irony is that these platforms never did bother to moderate. I'll occasionally flag some comments that are very obvious hate speech and the response is always "we found nothing wrong".
  
  I've given up flagging misinformation on FB. They don't even give you a clear option for it except for very specific categories.

- "if you are a dick to people in a community the community will kick you out! unbelievable!"
- And?

This is a good thing.
Let people say what they want. If you don't like it, you can always ignore them.
- I see what you're getting at - if we're gonna allow our citizens freedom of speech, this is part of what it looks like. For the record, these dumb ass takes on my LGBTQ+ peeps do NOT align with my own personal feelings. However, freedom of speech is objectively a good thing.
  Problem is that entities like Meta and X are suppressing the voices of people that are making comments against the status quo and challenging the uber rich, and elevating the voices of the bigots.
  All that to say I think that's why people are downvoting you, but I agree with you.
  
  As a libertarian, I love the saying, "your rights end where mine begin." You can say whatever you like, up until the point where it starts violating my rights. Harassment violates my rights, and if you harass me with your speech, regardless of the actual content, you should be silenced on that platform.
  The way I see it, harassment has two parts to it:
  damages
  intent
  If I offend on accident, I should have the opportunity to make it right. If I offend on purpose, I should be banned.
- That's how disinformation works.
  
  It also strives in the world of censorship, it just serves the dominant force then.
- Hard disagree.
  If one person's rights negatively affect another persons rights you can't just rule one right to be more important in every situation. There's gotta be more nuance than that.
  
  You can say whatever you want without affecting other people's rights.
  
  How does writing a comment on Facebook negatively affect anyone’s rights?
- Me when I like to spread disinformation on the internet
- You are a mentally deranged paedophile that wants to mutilate children.
  Just ignore me while I tell everyone I know about that paedophile john89, okay?
  
  Sure thing!
- I'm half with you. You can say what you want, but if you harass people, regardless of the content of your speech, you should be banned/silenced on private platforms.

I feel conflicted. On one hand, people can regulate themselves, and Facebook becoming a bigoted cesspit may bring more people to a moderated Fediverse.
On the other hand, these major platforms having such user monopoly and influence can cause unfettered hate speech to breed violence.
I’m conflicted about the idea that an insidious for-profit megacorporation should be expected to uphold a moral responsibility to prevent violence; their failure to do so might be a necessary wake-up call that ultimately strips them of that problematic influence. Thoughts?
- Accelerationism is ultimately burning the vulnerable at the stake to try and send a smoke signal, so I think it's hard to say that this is a positive development. We can hope that there is a silver lining here where corporate social media self selects itself out of the general populations' lives, but I think we probably have to be realistic about the low probability of success here and the human cost that is incurred in the meantime
  
  Too many people use meta's services.