The Meta Oversight Board, the independent governing body that makes policy recommendations to the technology company, said Thursday that Meta account deactivations lack due process, violations are distributed unclearly, and there is little customer support for appeals.
The board, which recently received increased funding to continue its work until 2028, began the investigation into Meta’s account violation policy earlier this year to review a case of threats of violence against a journalist. The board agreed that Meta was right to permanently deactivate the account due to the severity of the threats.
However, in investigating the matter, the board found what it described as “systemic human rights concerns” and a “lack of transparency and consistency” when it came to Meta’s two-system approach to deactivating accounts.
That’s a reference to the two different ways accounts can be taken action: one involving strikes, some of which can be serious, and another for “egregious” violations that warrant permanently disabling an account. The board said the difference between what leads to one type of violation or another is neither clear nor well documented.
The board also criticized the social media giant for charging users for Meta Verified access, which is supposed to include “24/7 access to email or chat agent support,” but not provide users with disabled accounts any type of “meaningful assistance”.
Meta users on Facebook, Instagram, and other meta apps have been dealing with this problem for years. As Meta’s moderation systems became automated over the years, when they made mistakes, there was little recourse to get any kind of help from the company. This has been devastating for users who have lost their personal accounts, or even their company accounts, due to false accusations. Some have even filed lawsuits on he affair or are in the process of doing so.
the board took the matter of permanent bans in a landmark case after a wave of recent bans that affected Facebook and Instagram
No support, no appeal process
After covering the bans, TechCrunch received a steady stream of reports from affected users, begging us to report their cases to Meta.
For example, Richard Pauwels, a retired Los Angeles County firefighter and paramedic, who was building a wellness brand on Meta platforms, claimed his personal account was banned without any specific posts being identified and without human review.
Alleged automated child sexual exploitation (CSE) violations are another common occurrence that leads to bans, which are devastating to innocent parties.
For example, a PR professional reached out to us and asked to remain anonymous because his account was banned over false CSE allegations, despite no content being cited in his ban or any new posts from him in weeks. Meta’s accusation was “evil and vile,” they told us, and they filed a case with the Oversight Board.
Another person, Manomi Jayakody, said her account was also banned by CSE, again without any specific content, action or violation being flagged.
“I fully understand and support the critical importance of CSE enforcement and online safety. However, when accounts are flagged in such serious categories without due process, transparency, or consistent human oversight… the consequences for innocent users are serious,” they wrote to TechCrunch and other journalists in an email. “In my case, I received no explanation, no evidence, and no opportunity to clarify or correct any alleged problem.”
In another example, a bird rescue operation, precisely, was prohibited for CSE material. “It’s an account about our rescued pigeons. It has over 60,000 followers and we use that account regularly to contact other volunteers who rescue birds and find adopters or medical assistance for all the birds we help,” they pleaded in an email to TechCrunch.
Another content creator, Albert Olgaard, with 325,000 followers on Instagram, said his business’s Meta accounts were shut down overnight over accusations of “fraud,” without citing what he did wrong. When he tried to appeal, a message on the screen said: “You cannot request another review of this decision.” The move affected him financially, he said.
Designer Alex Smola also woke up one day to find that his account was permanently deactivated.
“The account was linked to legitimate business activity, including site access, customer communication, marketing, advertising, and lead generation,” Smola wrote in an email to TechCrunch. “Since the removal, I have suffered continued business interruptions, damage to my reputation, and significant stress, while also being unable to obtain any meaningful human reviews through Meta’s support channels.”
That mirrors many other complaints TechCrunch filed from Meta Verified subscribers who said they didn’t receive the support they paid for through the subscription. One person even said that the Meta agent ended his chat when he referenced the EU regulation, GDPR.
These are just some of the reports we’ve received since we covered the topic, and the incoming emails continue from people desperate for help.
As these examples and others demonstrate, there are due process concerns surrounding account bans. As a result, the board recommends that Meta offer users a dashboard where they can easily review their account statistics, past violations, and information on appeal options, along with clear notifications about violations as they are imposed.
These warnings or violation reports must include the time they were imposed, the specific rule that was violated, the penalty imposed, and appeal options.
Additionally, the board says Meta should provide users with information about the role AI plays in reviewing content and imposing warnings or penalties, among other things.
In response to the board reportMeta shared the following statement: “We welcome the Oversight Board’s decision on this case. The Board upheld Meta’s decision to permanently disable an account. After conducting a review of the recommendations provided by the Board, we will update this post with initial responses to those recommendations.”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This does not affect our editorial independence.
