Description du cas
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.
Commentaires
Public Comment – Account Ban for Targeting Public Figures
Cases: 2026-006-IG-MR to 2026-0010-IG-MR
The Board’s decision to review Meta’s approach to permanently disabling accounts is long overdue. While the present case concerns threats and abuse directed at public figures, the same enforcement architecture is being used to disable ordinary users and small businesses worldwide, often without explanation, meaningful appeal, or human review.
I support strong measures to protect journalists, women in public life, and minorities from credible threats of violence. However, the legitimacy of such measures depends on procedural justice. From the perspective of affected users, the current system often lacks:
Notice – clear, specific reasons for account disabling, rather than generic references to “violating Community Standards.”
Evidence – access to the content and behavioural assessments that triggered permanent enforcement.
Human Review – the ability to have decisions reconsidered by a trained moderator, not only automated systems.
Proportionality – transparent criteria for bypassing the strike system and imposing permanent bans.
Timely Appeal – realistic timeframes and communication, rather than indefinite silence.
In my own case, both my Facebook and Instagram accounts were permanently disabled in 2025 (kevcon1079) with no warning, no detailed explanation, and no access to a human decision-maker. Months later, there has still been no meaningful response. This experience is now widely shared among thousands of users, as documented by media coverage and public petitions.
This raises several broader concerns directly relevant to the Board’s mandate:
1. Due Process and Fairness
Permanent account disablement has profound effects on freedom of expression, association, livelihood, and mental well-being. It should meet the minimum standards of natural justice:
Specific charges, not vague policy labels.
Disclosure of the decision logic (including whether AI systems initiated the action).
Independent human review before permanent sanctions.
A structured, time-bound appeals pathway.
2. Protection of Public Figures and Journalists
Safeguards against threats and harassment are essential, particularly for women in public life. However, enforcement legitimacy depends on trust. If the same systems are perceived as arbitrarily silencing ordinary users, confidence in protections for journalists is also undermined. Strong protection and strong due process must exist together.
3. Off-Platform Context
Where off-platform behaviour is considered, standards of evidence, reliability, and relevance must be transparent. Users should know what contextual signals are being used and how errors are corrected.
4. Effectiveness of Punitive Measures
Research consistently shows that deterrence works best when enforcement is predictable, transparent, and perceived as fair. Opaque, automated, and unappealing sanctions risk radicalising users rather than reforming behaviour.
5. Transparency and Industry Practice
Best practice should include:
Public reporting on how often permanent disabling of accounts occurs outside the strike system.
Statistics on AI-initiated vs human-initiated account bans.
Error rates and successful appeals, plus an actual customer support email.
Clear explanations of when “intent to violate” justifies bypassing graduated sanctions.
Recommendation to the Board:
The Board should recommend that Meta:
Require mandatory human review before any permanent account disablement.
Publish clear criteria for disabling accounts outside the strike system.
Provide detailed notices of violation, including the specific content and policies relied upon.
Establish an independent, time-bound appeal channel accessible to all users, not only in high-profile cases.
Report publicly on AI error rates and reversal outcomes in account-level enforcement.
This case centres on a high-profile account and serious misconduct. But the system under review governs billions of users. If oversight is to be meaningful, it must ensure that the same human rights standards apply not only to prominent cases but also to ordinary people whose voices, communities, and livelihoods can be erased by automated decisions.
Independent oversight must be measured not by policy statements or headline cases, but by whether due process is real, accessible, and effective for those with the least power.