Safeguarding children cannot unjustifiably silence corruption scrutiny
November 20, 2025
The Oversight Board has upheld Meta’s decision to leave up a Facebook post that makes allegations of corruption against a Filipino politician using images of him and his children, several of whom appear to be minors. In this case, the Board finds that the language used did not contain a direct or veiled threat but is better understood as a vow to expose corruption by a public figure. The Board notes that children’s rights and safety must always be safeguarded. However, public officials should not be allowed to use these protections to avoid scrutiny. Mere references to children in corruption allegations cannot, by themselves, silence such claims when children are used as proxies.
About the Case
In April 2025, a Facebook user posted two images on a Facebook group’s page. The first image shows Elizaldy Salcedo Co, a Filipino politician, and his family, including his minor children. The second image shows an airplane flying over water. The caption, in Tagalog and English, states that the children have a Gulfstream airplane in their name and questions how it was purchased.
The caption includes the phrases: “At the expense of your family’s safety and security. Right, Zaldy?” and “This is the price Zaldy … your family.” The caption ends with the Tagalog words, “Hindi ka namin patahimikin.” Meta translated this statement as, “We will hunt [you] down.” Meta did not interpret the phrase as a threat to commit violence, but as an attempt to root out corruption. The Board consulted linguistic experts who confirmed this interpretation, construing the phrase to mean, “We will not leave you alone.”
The post has been shared more than 4,000 times and has more than 1.7 million views. Two different Meta classifiers – designed to find viral content that potentially violates the Violence and Incitement policy and viral content that could involve harm to young people – identified it. These reports were not prioritized for human review, and the post remained on the platform.
Meta reviewed the post after receiving a report about the content from a contact at the Philippines House of Representatives. The company, after analyzing the post and consulting local experts, concluded that it was non-violating and kept it on the platform. Meta referred the case to the Oversight Board.
Key Findings
The Board finds that the language in the post does not contain a direct or veiled violent threat but is better understood as denouncing and vowing to expose corruption by a public figure.
Issues involving potential threats to children’s safety online should be taken seriously and acted on quickly. However, in this case, the Board finds that the allegations of corruption were directed at the politician alone, not his family members.
The content did not violate the policy on bullying and harassment, which prohibits making allegations of illegal behavior against private minors, because the post was directed at their father. The post also did not violate Meta’s internal guidance which prohibits criminal allegations against adults when it could lead to offline harm.
The Board highlights that people should be free to express their political views, including criticism of politicians, without fear of censorship. Under international human rights law, such speech lies at the core of protected political expression. Political leaders and public officials are required to tolerate greater scrutiny and criticism than private individuals, given their influential role in public affairs.
Criticism of public officials should be evaluated within its social and linguistic context to understand the risks it may pose, especially in environments where exposing corruption may be restricted or dangerous. While allegations of corruption can sometimes occur in the context of threatening attacks, Meta should recognize that when no threat of violence is present – as in this case – such requests may not truly aim to protect children but are rather an attempt by powerful figures to shield themselves from accountability. The response must be necessary and proportionate, taking into account context and language. It should recognize the high public interest in transparency, accountability and protection for speech alleging corruption by public officials.
The Board directs Meta’s attention to recommendations from previous cases calling on Meta to publish its internal guidance so users can clearly understand what is allowed or not. Meta should ensure that it relies on local and contextual expertise to make difficult decisions about content with potential threats, as it did in this case.
The Oversight Board’s Decision
The Board upholds Meta’s decision to leave the content up.
The Board also reiterates previous recommendations that Meta improve enforcement based on contextual analysis related to potentially threatening language, issued in the Iran Protest Slogan, Call for Women’s Protests in Cuba and Statements About the Japanese Prime Minister cases. This includes updating internal guidance provided to content reviewers, where relevant, so that the company addresses any lack of clarity, gaps or inconsistencies.
Note: Following the Oversight Board's decision, the posting page was disabled for exceeding the strike threshold for content unrelated to this case.
Further Information
To read public comments for this case, click here.
