Policies that outline what is and isn't allowed on the Facebook app.
Policies for ad content and business assets.
Other policies that apply to Meta technologies.
How we update our policies, measure results, work with others, and more.
How we help prevent interference, empower people to vote and more.
How we work with independent fact-checkers, and more, to identify and take action on misinformation.
How we assess content for newsworthiness.
How we reduce problematic content in News Feed.
Quarterly report on how well we're doing at enforcing our policies on the Facebook app and Instagram.
Report on how well we're helping people protect their intellectual property.
Report on government request for people's data.
Report on when we restrict content that's reported to us as violating local law.
Report on intentional internet restrictions that limit people's ability to access the internet.
Quarterly report on what people see on Facebook, including the content that receives the widest distribution during the quarter.
Download current and past regulatory reports for Facebook and Instagram.
Yes. Content decisions from the board are binding. Meta will restore or remove content on Facebook or Instagram based on the board’s determination.
Unlike the board’s content decisions on individual cases, recommendations are not binding. Meta is committed to both considering these recommendations as important input on our internal policy processes and publicly responding to each recommendation within 30 days.
When feasible, Meta will implement the board’s decision across content that’s identical and has a parallel context that remains on Facebook.
Yes. One way that cases can get to the board is if Meta requests a policy advisory opinion. That allows Meta to seek input on policies that have repeatedly proven significant in their impact and/or difficult in the way they’re applied on Facebook and Instagram.
The board can also provide a policy advisory statement for any case they hear. We would consider these statements through our policy development process.
The board has heard a number of significant and difficult content cases that touch on topics such as protests, nudity and religious expression and violence. These cases have invoked a number of tough decisions around competing values. This includes the rights people have to express themselves politically or religiously and the potential for some expression to lead to imminent, offline harm.
You can read more about cases that the board has selected to hear at our newsroom.
Our case page includes a table of cases that is easily searchable.
If you disagree with a decision Meta has made on content on Facebook or Instagram, and you’ve exhausted your appeals on either platform, you may appeal the decision to the Oversight Board. You’ll be issued an Oversight Board reference number in your Support Inbox on Facebook or Support Requests on Instagram. You can take this reference number to the Oversight Board website to submit your case for review by the board.
You can appeal content you posted on Facebook or Instagram that has been taken down and content from another person left up on Facebook or Instagram. The types of content that are eligible for review by the board include posts/statuses, photos, videos, comments and shares. Groups, pages, events, and ads will be within the scope of the board to review in the future.
Meta will directly refer cases to the board that are significant and difficult, as stated in the bylaws:
Significant means the content involves real-world impact and issues that are severe, large-scale and/or important for public discourse.
Difficult means the content raises questions about current policies or their enforcement, with strong arguments on both sides for either removing or leaving up the content under review. The board has sole discretion to accept or reject cases that are referred through this process.
Some examples include the line between raising awareness and hate speech and the spread of graphic content after a tragic event of public interest.
We’re regularly referring our own docket of cases to the board that we see as significant and difficult.
The board was established to hear the most significant and difficult cases at Meta. Initially appealing to Meta helps to guarantee the cases that make their way to the board have been checked multiple times and, therefore, represent some of the trickier and more consequential content decisions Meta has made.
The Oversight Board was designed to be a deliberative and thoughtful body that can diligently and comprehensively make some of the most difficult content decisions with input from experts. While Meta will continue to make initial decisions on millions of pieces of content every day, the feedback we received from our consultation recommended that the board should be set up to deliberate and act as a check on Meta's content decisions.
No. Meta makes the initial decision on all cases that are sent to the board, and we stand by them. As Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg shared in his blueprint for a new system of content governance and enforcement, “Facebook should not make so many important decisions about free expression and safety on our own.”
We’ve created and empowered a new group to exercise independent judgment over some of the most difficult and significant content decisions. That way, Meta is not alone in making consequential decisions about speech, safety and dignity.
As Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained in 2019, we’ve publicly committed ourselves to abide by the board’s decisions. Meta has spent years investing time and resources into the Oversight Board because we believe an independent and binding check on decisions we make is essential.
The board is not a panacea. Meta sees the board as an important but single piece within a wider content moderation regime, which includes updated internet regulations.
In March 2019, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg called for governments to work with online platforms to create and adopt new regulation for online content, noting, “It’s impossible to remove all harmful content from the Internet, but when people use dozens of different sharing services—all with their own policies and processes—we need a more standardized approach.” We followed that call with a content moderation white paper in February 2021.
Meta selected the co-chairs, and in coordination with the co-chairs, selected the first 16 members. The group comes from a diverse set of professions and backgrounds to ensure a global perspective. Meta and the Oversight Board will jointly select the next 20 members, after which, the Oversight Board is responsible for member selection, independent of Meta. Anyone can recommend new board members.