وصف حالة
Account Ban for Targeting Public Figures
Today, the Board is announcing new cases 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 cases that we are announcing today are:
Account Ban for Targeting Public Figures
2026-006-IG-MR, 2026-007-IG-MR, 2026-08-IG-MR, 2026-009-IG-MR, 2026-0010-IG-MR
Meta Referrals
Submit a public comment using the button below
The Board will assess whether Meta was right to permanently disable a user account, following a referral in which the company requested guidance from the Board. This is the first time the Board has taken a case on Meta's approach to permanently disabling accounts – an urgent concern for Meta’s users. It represents a significant opportunity to provide users with greater transparency on Meta’s account enforcement policies and practices, make recommendations for improvement, and expand the types of cases the Board can review.
In 2025, Meta permanently disabled a widely followed Instagram account for repeatedly violating the company’s Community Standards. Meta referred its decision to the Board, pointing to the challenges of respecting political speech while following its account disablement rules when users engage in patterns of abuse, including against public figures and for threats against female journalists.
Meta referred five posts made in the year before they permanently disabled the Instagram account. Multiple posts included visual threats of violence and harassment against a female journalist. Other posts featured anti-gay slurs against prominent politicians and content depicting a sex act, alleging misconduct against minorities. Meta determined that the posts violated the Violence and Incitement, Bullying and Harassment, Hateful Conduct, and Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Community Standards. The company removed each post from the platform and applied a strike to the account after each violation.
The account came to the attention of Meta staff, who reported it to the company's internal experts for review. They determined that the account demonstrated a persistent pattern of repeated violations of the company’s policies over the previous year and posed a safety risk, as some of the referred posts called for violence that could lead to death. While the account had not yet accrued enough strikes to be automatically disabled, this risk, combined with the account’s multiple violations of Meta’s policies, led to the decision to permanently disable the account.
Meta’s Account Integrity policy notes that the company may disable accounts that persistently violate its policies, and in its referral, the company explained that it also disables accounts that demonstrate a clear intent to violate its policies. Meta noted that decisions to disable accounts can also be made outside of the strike system on a case-by-case basis, considering a user’s behavior and activity.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- How best to ensure due process and fairness to people whose accounts are penalized or permanently disabled.
- The effectiveness of measures used by social media platforms to protect public figures and journalists from accounts engaged in repeated abuse and threats of violence, in particular against women in the public eye.
- Challenges in identifying and considering off-platform context when assessing threats against public figures and journalists.
- Research into the efficacy of punitive measures to shape online behaviors, and the efficacy of alternative or complementary interventions.
- Good industry practices in transparency reporting on account enforcement decisions and related appeals.
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 these cases.
Public Comments
If you or your organization feel you can contribute valuable perspectives that can help with reaching a decision on the cases 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 Tuesday, 3 February.
What’s Next
Over the next few weeks, Board Members will be deliberating these cases. Once they have reached their decision, we will post it on the Decisions page.
تعليقات
I am submitting this comment as a long-time Facebook user whose account was permanently disabled on or about January 20–21, 2026. I am the account holder (Levi Beers). I am writing because the enforcement action and appeal process I experienced appear to reflect a broader pattern of automated, high-impact decisions being made without meaningful human review, and in a way that undermines Meta’s own stated process requirements.
1) Summary of what happened
My Facebook account—used for many years—was permanently disabled following an automated enforcement action. Meta’s notice stated that my account was disabled and that my request for review was unsuccessful, and that I could not request another review.
The only “explanation” I could infer from the enforcement context was an old, inactive advocacy group I previously ran called “Help Save Kratom!” The group has been defunct since approximately 2018. There was no contemporaneous harmful conduct, no warning, and no clear explanation tying any specific violating content to the permanent penalty imposed.
2) A process problem: no usable case/reference ID for meaningful review
A core issue I want to highlight is procedural: Meta delivered a final, permanent outcome yet did not provide me with a clear reference identifier, case ID, decision ID, or any standardized artifact that would allow an external body—or even Meta support channels—to reliably trace and audit the decision.
This matters because “appeal” without traceability is not a real appeal. Users cannot meaningfully challenge a decision if they cannot reference it in a consistent way, and oversight cannot meaningfully evaluate patterns if users cannot supply identifiers that map to internal enforcement logs, model outputs, or reviewer notes.
If Meta expects users to seek remedy through established channels (including the Oversight Board ecosystem), Meta must provide a stable, standardized reference ID for every enforcement action and every appeal outcome—especially where a decision is permanent.
3) The human harm: irreversible loss of personal history
This is not simply an inconvenience. A permanent disablement can erase years of personal history: messages, photos, and comments that represent meaningful relationships and family memories. In my case, that includes years of history with my wife—messages and small exchanges that cannot be reconstructed.
Even if Meta believes a policy violation exists, the consequences of a permanent disablement go far beyond the content at issue. When the penalty is irreversible, the process must be more reliable than a rapid automated conclusion.
4) Why this appears systemic (and why it concerns me)
Since my disablement, I have observed a large number of users reporting similar experiences: accounts disabled suddenly, appeals denied quickly, and little-to-no clarity about what content triggered the enforcement. I cannot independently verify each report, but the pattern described is consistent: the “appeal” feels like a second automated step rather than meaningful review.
If Meta has recently expanded or modified automated enforcement (including AI moderation tools) as a primary cost-saving measure, it is critical that the company implement robust pre-deployment testing, clear user notice, and meaningful human escalation—especially for high-impact penalties like permanent account disablement.
5) What I’m asking the Oversight Board to consider
I recognize I am submitting a public comment, not an appeal. My purpose is to urge the Board to treat “process integrity” as inseparable from “content moderation.”
Specifically, I urge the Oversight Board to consider recommending:
1. Mandatory Reference IDs: Meta must provide a clear enforcement/appeal reference ID for every disablement and every appeal outcome.
2. Meaningful Explanation Standards: Permanent disablements should include a meaningful explanation, including the relevant policy category and a clear description of the triggering behavior or content type, sufficient for a user to understand and contest it.
3. Human Escalation for Permanent Penalties: Permanent account penalties should require human review before finalization, or at minimum a verified human escalation path when the user requests it.
4. Evidence Preservation / Data Access: Where Meta permanently disables an account, users should have a reliable and timely method to export their data, including messages, photos, and other personal archives, unless a lawful reason prohibits it.
5. Proportionality & “Defunct/Legacy” Context: Meta should consider whether legacy/inactive entities (e.g., old groups inactive for years) are being improperly used as triggers for severe penalties without current harmful activity, and whether penalty severity is proportional to any present risk.
6. Auditability: Meta should maintain internal audit trails sufficient for independent oversight to evaluate: (a) what triggered the action, (b) whether a model or rule fired, (c) whether a human reviewed it, and (d) the basis for concluding a permanent disablement was necessary.
6) Closing
I understand that content moderation at scale is difficult. But the more Meta relies on automated systems for high-impact penalties, the more vital it becomes to ensure due process, transparency, traceability, and proportionality. Permanent disablement is not a “small error.” It is a permanent outcome with permanent consequences.
Thank you for considering this comment.
— Levi Beers