Overturned
Post Asking for Insulin in Mexico
October 2, 2025
A user appealed Meta’s decision to take down a Facebook post containing a video depicting an elderly person holding a sign that reads, in Spanish: “Trading wellness chocolate for insulin.”
Summary decisions examine cases in which Meta has reversed its original decision on a piece of content after the Board brought it to the company’s attention and include information about Meta’s acknowledged errors. They are approved by a Board Member panel, rather than the full Board, do not involve public comments and do not have precedential value for the Board. Summary decisions directly bring about changes to Meta’s decisions, providing transparency on these corrections, while identifying where Meta could improve its enforcement.
Summary
A user appealed Meta’s decision to take down a Facebook post containing a video depicting an elderly person holding a sign that reads, in Spanish: “Trading wellness chocolate for insulin.” After the Board brought the appeal to Meta’s attention, the company reversed its original decision and restored the post.
About the Case
In May 2025, a Facebook user posted a video depicting an elderly person holding a sign that reads, in Spanish: “Trading wellness chocolate for insulin.” The “wellness chocolate” mentioned in the content - “chocolate de bienestar” in Spanish - is part of the Mexican government’s “Food for Well-Being” strategy. The strategy promotes “fair trade products made in Mexico” and aims at “creating a fair market for small producers and promoting healthy eating for Mexicans.” At the same time, rising medical costs and shortages in medicine have been reported in Mexico, along with logistical challenges within public institutions, especially in the distribution of medications such as insulin. In February 2025, health workers across the State of Mexico and in Mexico City protested against shortages of medical supplies.
In their appeal to the Board against Meta's original decision to take down the content, the user explained that no drug sale was involved in the post. Instead, it criticized Mexican politics and government spending, since priority was being given to spending on sweets promoted by the government, while there was a shortage of medicines in the country. The user stated that the person in the video had diabetes, which was why they could not eat sweets and was asking to exchange chocolate for insulin to control their condition. The post was ironic and sarcastic, not meant to be taken literally. The user added that their account was geared toward publishing news of national interest about problems occurring in different parts of the country.
In its Restricted Goods and Services policy, Meta prohibits “attempts to buy, sell or trade prescription drugs” subject to certain exceptions, and requests "for prescription drugs, except when content discusses the affordability, accessibility or efficacy of prescription drugs in a medical context.” Prescription drugs are defined in the policy as “drugs that require a prescription or medical professionals to administer.”
After the Board brought this case to Meta’s attention, the company reversed its original decision. Meta’s regional team provided the context that the image is related to a new Mexican government program called “Los Chocolates del Bienestar” (“Well-being Chocolates”), which aims to support national products such as cacao, corn, honey and coffee. Meta also referred to a reported shortage of medicine in public hospitals. The company therefore determined that the content did not violate the Restricted Goods and Services policy and that its original decision to take down the post was incorrect. Meta considered that the user did not violate the policy because the post was political, did not appear to be actually attempting to purchase medication on the platform, and, based on regional context, did not involve a prescription drug. The company then restored the content to Facebook.
Board Authority and Scope
The Board has authority to review Meta’s decision following an appeal from the user whose content was removed (Charter Article 2, Section 1; Bylaws Article 3, Section 1).
When Meta acknowledges it made an error and reverses its decision in a case under consideration for Board review, the Board may select that case for a summary decision (Bylaws Article 2, Section 2.1.3). The Board reviews the original decision to increase understanding of the content moderation process, reduce errors and increase fairness for Facebook, Instagram and Threads users.
Significance of Case
This case highlights failures in considering local context during content moderation, particularly to identify satirical content.
The Board has issued recommendations on the importance of assessing content in conjunction with relevant context. For instance, it recommended that Meta “make sure that it has adequate procedures in place to assess satirical content and relevant context properly. This includes providing content moderators with: (i) access to [Meta’s] local operation teams to gather relevant cultural and background information; and (ii) sufficient time to consult with [Meta’s] local operation teams and to make the assessment” (“Two Buttons” Meme, recommendation no. 3). Meta reported implementation but did not publish information to demonstrate it. In February 2022, in response to the Board’s recommendation, Meta noted that “in preparing the update to the Community Standards to reflect the satire context specific policy, [it] also developed procedures and guidelines to support escalations teams in evaluating content for satire.” The company also listed seven policies that it stated had been updated to reflect that satirical content would be allowed in the necessary context (Meta’s Q4 2021 Quarterly Update on the Oversight Board). The Community Standard on Restricted Goods and Services was among the seven policies listed. In November 2021, Meta updated the language of the policy to highlight that “in certain cases, we will allow content that may otherwise violate the Community Standards when it is determined that the content is satirical. Content will only be allowed if the violating elements of the content are being satirized or attributed to something or someone else in order to mock or criticize them.” In June 2024, however, this language was removed from the policy without explanation.
The Board believes Meta could significantly improve its accuracy rates in evaluating content in relation to the Community Standard on Restricted Goods and Services across languages and regions. In this regard, the Board has previously recommended that “Meta should conduct regular assessments on reviewer accuracy rates focused on the Restricted Goods and Services policy." The Board explained that it would consider this recommendation implemented when Meta shares the results of these assessments with the Board, including how these results would inform improvements to enforcement operations and policy development, and summarizes the results in its quarterly Board transparency reports. ( Asking for Adderall®, recommendation no. 3). The Board considers that this recommendation was either omitted or reframed by Meta, since the company’s response does not address the recommendation’s core objective. In November 2023, Meta stated that it “already collect[s] and assess[es] data on the basis of takedowns and restoration,” including takedowns under the Restricted Goods and Services policy, and “report[s] the amount of appealed content and content that is restored on Facebook and Instagram in [its] Community Standards Enforcement Report” (Meta’s Q3 2023 Quarterly Update on the Oversight Board). The Board notes, however, that the takedown and restoration metrics related to user appeals Meta referenced are not the same as the reviewer accuracy metrics mentioned in the recommendation, which are intended to measure how often content moderators are making errors in an independent review, not linked to appeals. The Board also notes that Meta didn’t share how the data the company collects informs improvements to enforcement operations and policy development.
The Board believes that fully implementing the recommendations mentioned above would further strengthen the company’s ability to reduce overenforcement due to failures in considering local context and assessing whether the content contains satire. It would allow Meta to readily identify shortcomings, allocating resources to improve accuracy rates where needed. Moreover, public reporting on the accuracy of reviews under the Restricted Goods and Services policy would increase transparency and generate engagement with Meta that has the potential to lead to further improvements.
Decision
The Board overturns Meta’s original decision to take down the content. The Board acknowledges Meta’s correction of its initial error once the Board brought the case to Meta’s attention.
