Board to Analyze AI-Generated Video of Female Campaigner
18 de Junho de 2026
Today, the Board is announcing a new case for consideration. As part of this, we invite people and organizations to submit public comments by using the button below.
Case Selection
As we cannot hear every appeal, the Board prioritizes cases that have the potential to affect lots of users around the world, are of critical importance to public discourse or raise important questions about Meta’s policies.
The case that we are announcing today is:
AI-Generated Video of Female Campaigner
2026-043-FB-UA
Reporter Appeal
Submit a public comment using the button below
The Board has selected a case involving an AI-generated video of a female campaigner who was depicted giving health advice she never gave, following widespread abuse online about her appearance after a news interview. The Board has selected as a case for review one example of how this abuse manifested on Meta’s platforms in a Facebook post the company left up. The case will allow the Board to examine how AI-generated videos are changing the nature of online harassment, the impacts on the rights of Meta’s users, and the implications for expression and participation of women and girls, who are often targeted.
Recently, a young woman was interviewed on the news as a volunteer for a campaign group speaking about improving women’s health education and reducing stigma around health conditions for women and girls from ethnic minority backgrounds. This footage was digitally manipulated to misrepresent her role and message, exposing her to widespread global commentary and abuse about her appearance across multiple social media platforms.
The case the Board selected is an AI-generated video where the woman from the news interview is depicted out of context introducing herself as having been newly appointed to an official health role for her country. She is shown saying that she is going to demonstrate how to stay in shape, and then is depicted engaging in various physical activities, including at the gym, and giving health advice about eating while consuming junk food. In reality, she never made any of these claims in the original interview, which did not address healthy eating or exercise but addressed other health issues. The post has been viewed over 5,000 times, received over 200 reactions, and over 50 comments. Multiple comments ridicule the woman’s appearance, including about her weight and hijab.
A user reported the content for violating Meta’s Bullying and Harassment Community Standard. The report was not prioritized for human review, and the content stayed up without an AI label. The reporting user appealed Meta’s decision but this report was also not prioritized for human review. The user then appealed Meta’s decision to the Board, stating in the appeal that the post used AI to generate a woman’s likeness without her consent, fabricate misleading content, and publicly shame her for her health advocacy.
When the Board brought the case to Meta’s attention, the company concluded the post did not meet the criteria for violating its Bullying and Harassment Community Standard. According to Meta, the post did not contain “statements of inferiority about physical appearance” directed at the woman who was depicted and named in the video that would violate the policy. Meta further explained that the juxtaposition of health-related activities with the consumption of unhealthy food could be read as implicitly commenting on how the depicted woman looks, but that the post did not contain an explicit statement attacking her physical appearance. Meta also found the post did not violate its prohibition on “unwanted manipulated imagery” targeting non-public figures. This is because the woman depicted did not report the post herself, which is required to trigger consideration for removal. Meta also informed the Board that this rule is intended to address “digital manipulations that alter a person’s look (e.g. face or body) rather than altered depiction of what a person is doing.” Fabrication or misrepresentation of a person’s actions or conduct is not covered by the “unwanted manipulated imagery” rule, according to Meta.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The sources, prevalence and impact of AI-generated content that mocks or harasses people, especially targeting women and girls participating in public discussions or engaging in human rights advocacy when they are not public figures.
- How to accurately enforce rules against AI-generated harassment, especially targeting non-public figures, while respecting freedom of expression and avoiding over-enforcement of legitimate social and political commentary.
- Barriers women and girls face in sharing or accessing reproductive health information on social media platforms.
- How social media companies’ design choices can reduce the prevalence of mass harassment and the potential for it to go viral.
- Best practices for platforms seeking to help people targeted by "unwanted manipulated imagery,” including Meta’s limitations on the policy for manipulation of how a person looks (rather than what they are seen doing or saying) and the suitability of the requirement that victims must self-report.
In its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to this case.
Public Comments
If you or your organization feel you can contribute valuable perspectives that can help with reaching a decision on the case announced today, you can submit your contributions using the button below. Please note that public comments can be provided anonymously. The public comment window is open for 14 days, closing at 23:59 Pacific Standard Time (PST) on Thursday 2 July.
What’s Next
Over the next few weeks, Board Members will be deliberating this case. Once they have reached their decision, we will post it on the Decisions page.
