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.
For policy violations on Facebook, we measure the number of pieces of content (such as posts, photos, videos or comments) that people appeal after we take action on it for going against our policies.
To appeal a decision on Facebook, people select the option to “Request Review” after we notify them that their content has been removed or covered with a warning. When a review is requested, Meta reviews the post again and determines whether or not it follows our Community Standards. This process allows people to let us know if they think we’ve made a mistake, which is essential to help us build a fair system.
This metric shouldn't be interpreted as an indicator of the accuracy of our decisions on content, as people may choose to appeal for many different reasons.
We report the total number of pieces of content that had an appeal submitted in each quarter — for example, January 1 through March 31. Keep in mind that this means that the numbers can't be compared directly to content actioned or to content restored for the same quarter. Some restored content may have been appealed in the previous quarter, and some appealed content may be restored in the next quarter.
This number can go up or down due to external factors or due to internal processes. For example, imagine an offline event or a spam attack that leads to more violating posts on Facebook. As a result, we action more posts than usual. Because we have actioned more content, we may see a relatively large number of appeals. This spike in appeals doesn't mean that Meta made more incorrect decisions: it just means that more people chose to appeal our decisions.
A piece of content can be any number of things including a post, photo, video or comment. How we count individual pieces of content can be complex and has evolved over time. Learn more about our content actioned metric.
Let’s say someone publishes a post which we decide to remove from Facebook for going against our policies. The person who posted it is notified, and given the option to request a review or accept the decision.
If they choose to request a review, the content is resubmitted for another review. The content is not visible to other people on Facebook while we review it again. Reviewers don't know that the post has been reviewed previously.
If the reviewer agrees with the original decision, the content remains off Facebook. However, if the reviewer disagrees with the initial review and decides it should not have been removed, the content will go to a third reviewer. This reviewer's decision will determine whether the content should be on the service or not.
Today, we offer appeals for the vast majority of violation types on Facebook. We don't offer appeals for violations with extreme safety concerns, such as child exploitation imagery.
We are beginning to provide appeals not just for content that we took action on, but also for content that was reported but not acted on. These reporter appeals are not included in the Community Standards Enforcement Report.
The Community Standards Enforcement Report report does not currently include any appeals metrics for accounts, pages, groups and events we took action on.