Facebook Community Standards
Policies that outline what is and isn't allowed on the Facebook app.
Meta Advertising Standards
Policies for ad content and business assets.
Other policies
Other policies that apply to Meta technologies.
How Meta improves
How we update our policies, measure results, work with others and more.
Our approach to elections
How we help prevent interference, empower people to vote and more.
Our approach to misinformation
How we work with independent fact-checkers, and more, to identify and take action on misinformation.
Our approach to newsworthy content
How we assess content for newsworthiness.
Our approach to ranking
How we reduce problematic content in News Feed.
Community Standards enforcement report
Quarterly report on how well we're doing at enforcing our policies in the Facebook app and on Instagram.
Intellectual property
Report on how well we're helping people protect their intellectual property.
Government requests for user data
Report on government request for people's data.
Content restrictions based on local law
Report on when we restrict content that's reported to us as violating local law.
Internet disruptions
Report on intentional Internet restrictions that limit people's ability to access the Internet.
Widely viewed content report
Quarterly report on what people see on Facebook, including the content that receives the widest distribution during the quarter.
Regulatory and other transparency reports
Download current and past regulatory reports for Facebook and Instagram.
Integrating stakeholder feedback into the policymaking process is a core part of how Meta works. Though it's important we don't overpromise, we know that what stakeholders seek above all is for their insights to inform our policy decisions.
At the heart of our approach to stakeholder engagement is private conversations, in person if we can, or by video conference. We've found that this approach lends itself to candid dialogue and relationship building.
We typically don't release the names of the people or organisations that we engage with because these conversations can be sensitive and we want people to feel free to be completely open with us. Some stakeholders specifically request, or even require, confidentiality in order to engage with us – particularly members of vulnerable communities.
We also sometimes convene group discussions, bringing together various stakeholders from particular regions or specific policy areas. We've found that group settings can be useful for generating new ideas and providing updates to multiple stakeholders.
On occasion, it also makes sense to approach people on Facebook and Instagram to get their views. For example, when we reviewed the "exclusion" element of our hate speech policy, we talked to administrators from a number of major Facebook Groups who shared their insights with us relating to this policy.
In conversations with external stakeholders, we share Meta's thinking on the proposed policy, including what led us to reconsider a given policy, as well as the pros and cons of policy options that we've identified. The feedback we receive is then integrated into the review process and shapes our ongoing deliberations.
When stakeholder views conflict, as they inevitably will, we analyse the spectrum of opinion and points of disagreement. Our task is to identify which views are most persuasive and instructive for us, but we're not necessarily trying to reconcile every viewpoint; rather, our goal is to understand the full range of opinions about our proposals.
In some cases, we return to stakeholders for additional input as our thinking develops.
How we update the Facebook Community Standards