केस विवरण
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.
टिप्पणियाँ
I am a young user who has experienced account penalties and prolonged suspension through automated enforcement systems, and I believe my experience reflects broader issues around due process and fairness. When an account is penalized or permanently disabled, users are often given little to no specific explanation of what content or behavior triggered the action, whether the decision was automated, or how long the review process may take.
For young users in particular, long periods without feedback or resolution can feel confusing and discouraging, especially when accounts are used primarily to communicate with friends or participate in school and community life. Clear notice, timely communication, and meaningful human review are essential to ensure fairness.
I also recognize the importance of protecting public figures and journalists from repeated abuse and threats of violence, especially women who are disproportionately targeted. Strong enforcement is necessary in these cases. However, from a user perspective, it is important that systems accurately distinguish between real threats or coordinated harassment and contextual or conversational language that is not intended to cause harm. Overly broad enforcement can unintentionally affect users who are not engaging in abuse, which undermines trust in the system.
Another challenge I have observed is how platforms consider off-platform context. While harmful behavior may occur across multiple platforms, users are rarely informed when off-platform signals are being used to assess their accounts. Without transparency or the ability to understand what information is being considered, it is difficult for users to respond or correct misunderstandings. Any use of off-platform context should be limited, clearly explained, and supported by strong safeguards to prevent errors.
From my experience, punitive measures such as sudden suspensions or permanent bans—especially when automated—do not always help users understand what went wrong or how to change their behavior. In many cases, they create confusion rather than accountability. Alternative or complementary approaches, such as warnings, temporary restrictions, educational prompts, or clearer explanations of policy boundaries, may be more effective, particularly for younger users who are still learning platform norms.
Finally, greater transparency in reporting enforcement decisions would significantly improve trust. Platforms should share more detailed information about how often enforcement actions are overturned on appeal, how long reviews typically take, and how automated systems are used in high-impact decisions. For users like me, understanding that errors are acknowledged and addressed would make the system feel more fair and human.