← the record
AIAAIC-1266

Meta accused of 'systemically' censoring pro-Palestinian content

Meta stands accused of rountinely engaging in 'six key patterns of undue censorship' of content supporting Palestine during Israel's war with Hamas. Human Rights Watch (HRW) analysed over one thousand instances of online censorship from more than 60 countries, identifying six common patterns of censorship: content removals, suspension or deletion of accounts, inability to engage with content, inability to follow or tag accounts, restriction on the use of features such as Instagram and Facebook Live, and shadow-banning. According to HRW, the removal of peaceful expressions of support for Gazans is the result of 'flawed Meta policies and their inconsistent and erroneous implementation, overreliance on automated tools to moderate content, and undue government influence over content removals'. Meta responded by saying: 'This report ignores the realities of enforcing our policies globally during a fast-moving, highly polarised and intense conflict, which has led to an increase in content being reported to us.' System 🤖 Meta content moderation system Operator: Human Rights Watch Developer: Meta/Facebook; Meta/Instagram Country: Palestine; Israel Sector: Politics Purpose: Moderate content Technology: Content moderation system Issue: Accuracy/reliability; Bias/discrimination - race, ethnicity; Freedom of expression - censorship; Transparency Investigations, assessments, audits 🧐 Human Rights Watch (2023). Meta’s Broken Promises. Systemic Censorship of Palestine Content on Instagram and Facebook

Date it happened
2023-01-01
Organisation involved
Human Rights Watch
Product, system or model
Facebook; Instagram
Where this came from
Share this incident
XLinkedInFacebookWhatsAppEmail
Attribution

This incident was imported from AIAAIC and is used under CC BY-SA 4.0. Our additions to it — the structured fields, the translation, the checks against other reports — are published under the same licence.

This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.