Description du cas
The Oversight Board has selected a case involving an apparently AI-created video of a British politician that misrepresents her views on immigration. The Board will evaluate Meta’s actions regarding this post in light of the company's policies and human rights responsibilities to ensure respect for freedom of expression while addressing the possibly harmful impact of deceptive content related to important public matters.
A Facebook user in November 2025 posted an album including a short video showing an impersonation of a UK Labour Party Councillor who represents an area in Scotland. The video, which appears to be AI-generated, shows the politician saying: “Refugees are welcome here, even if they rape our women, because white people do that too.” A second video in the album shows people protesting, including a man waving a Palestinian flag with seemingly AI-generated audio of him chanting praise for Antifa, a left-wing, anti-fascist movement. A final image that appears to be real rather than AI-generated shows several women, including the politician depicted in the first video, holding anti-far-right protest signs and names them. The album’s caption accuses the politician of tax evasion without providing evidence. The user did not disclose AI use, and no informative AI label was applied by Meta to the content. The content received fewer than 50 reactions and comments, and fewer than 50 shares.
Two users reported the content for violating the Bullying and Harassment policy, but Meta’s systems did not prioritize the post for human review so the content remained on Facebook. Both users appealed to Meta, but again the post was not prioritized for human review. One of the users then appealed to the Board.
In their statement to the Board, the reporting user alleges that the video is AI-generated and misrepresents the politician’s beliefs, in the context of a demonstration where she supported the housing of asylum seekers. The user said the content may pose a threat to the woman’s safety.
Anti-immigration protests have taken place across the United Kingdom in 2025 and 2026. Some protesters claimed the housing of asylum seekers in hotels around the UK created safety concerns for women. Counter-protesters, including the depicted politician, have publicly rejected these claims as racist disinformation weaponizing concerns about violence against women to fuel anti-migrant hate. They have also reported intimidation and threats against them for speaking out, including online harassment and defamation using AI-generated content. Immigration and housing for asylum seekers have been topics of intense political debate in the run-up to elections, including those in Scotland on May 7, 2026. The depicted councillor was not up for re-election in 2026, however.
When the Board selected the case, Meta’s subject matter experts concluded the post did not violate the company’s community standards and therefore did not require removal, or the use of an AI label.
According to Meta, the content did not violate its Bullying and Harassment policy because the politician is an adult public figure and therefore not protected from “unwanted manipulated imagery,” whereas private individuals can self-report such content for it to be removed. Meta also determined that the claim in the video that refugees commit rape did not violate its Hateful Conduct policy because it was an assertion against the actions of some refugees rather than a generalization equating all or most refugees with criminals. The company noted that the post was not removed as misinformation since no Trusted Partners flagged it as false and likely to “directly contribute to the risk of imminent harm,” and it was not election interference. Meta’s Trusted Partner program is a global network of independent organizations, agencies and researchers that flag emerging risks from content. The content was not reviewed by third-party fact-checkers.
Meta also determined that the content did not merit an AI label under its Misinformation policy to inform users that the content was digitally created or altered. According to Meta, it did not require a label under its manipulated media rule as the content was not posted during an election or crisis, is satirical, received little engagement and it is unlikely to “create a particularly high risk of materially deceiving the public on a matter of public importance.”
The Board selected this case to evaluate Meta’s human rights responsibilities when AI tools are used to impersonate politicians to misrepresent their views on matters important to public discourse. The case allows the Board to investigate how platforms can make design, policy and enforcement choices that respect freedom of expression, including to satirize or criticize politicians, while addressing harms that may result from deceiving the public on important matters.
The case falls within the Board’s Automation and AI, and Hate Speech Against Marginalized Groups strategic priorities.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The prevalence, impact and sources of deceptive AI-generated content in shaping public opinion on immigration in Europe and globally.
- How social media platforms should address AI-generated harassment, hate or deception, including against politicians, while respecting freedom of expression, especially for political criticism, satire and humour, including the necessity and proportionality of removal or alternative measures to reduce dissemination.
- If and how platform policy and design choices can create incentives, including through monetization and recommendations, for people to share deceptive AI-generated content and how to mitigate or prevent adverse human rights impacts from them.
- How deepfake techniques are used in harassment campaigns against people who speak out on controversial issues, including politicians, and the broader impacts of deceptive AI-generated attacks to discredit people on access to information and political participation.
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 this case.
