Should Meta be allowed to permanently ban the profiles of public figures if they repeatedly violate the platform’s rules?
This has been a contentious question in recent years, due to the significance of Facebook’s presence, and the role it now plays in our broader information ecosystem. As a private company, Meta can make a decision on whomever it chooses to allow to use its apps, but at the same time, removing a public figure, especially a politician, could be seen as a partisan approach, which would then limit the ability of that politician to compete fairly in an electoral race.
That’s not great for Meta, as it can lead to difficult political relationships in future, though it does need to maintain some mechanism for enforcement, while also ensuring transparency in such process.
Given the broader implications and impacts, Meta has asked its independent Oversight Board to review its approach to permanent suspensions in such instances, in order to determine the best way forward in penalizing public figures for violating its rules.
The specific case here relates to a public figure whom Meta suspended indefinitely last year.
As per the Oversight Board:
“In 2025, Meta permanently disabled a widely followed Instagram account for repeatedly violating the company’s Community Standards. Meta [highlighted] five posts made in the year before they permanently disabled the Instagram account. Multiple posts included visual threats of violence and harassment against a female journalist. Other posts featured anti-gay slurs against prominent politicians and content depicting a sex act, alleging misconduct against minorities.”
The public figure, who’s not named in the Oversight Board case file, had not accrued enough strikes to be automatically disabled, but Meta’s team determined that the overall risk posed by this content, combined with the account’s multiple violations of Meta’s policies, justified a permanent ban on the account.
But Meta’s now seeking more clarity on this ruling, and others like it, and a more definitive approach in dealing with such violations by public figures. Because while regular users would also be suspended under the same conditions, Meta’s concerned that its approach to public figures could wield undue influence, and it wants to establish clear rules and parameters to avoid questions of bias in future.
Which, again, given Facebook’s oversized role in the modern media landscape, makes sense.
The most high-profile example of political suspension was Donald Trump, who Meta banned from Facebook and Instagram in 2021, following the January 6th attack on the Capitol building in Washington. That action was seen by Trump supporters (and Trump himself) as limiting free speech, with Meta essentially putting itself into the political firing line by taking such drastic action.
But based on Meta’s rules, Trump had violated the terms, and was rightfully suspended. Meta eventually referred that case to the Oversight Board as well, which determined that Meta was right in suspending Trump, but that Meta should also have established a time frame for the penalty, as opposed to implementing an indefinite suspension.
Meta eventually allowed Trump to return to its platforms in 2023, effectively giving Trump a two-year suspension for his actions.
This is effectively what Meta’s now trying to set clear parameters around, in what happens when a public figure does break the rules. The end result could make it easier for Meta to rule on such instances, without the perception of bias, because the parameters and penalties will be more clearly laid out and defined ahead of time.
And given the contentious nature of the modern political landscape, that could end up being an important distinction.
The Oversight Board will rule on the case, then give Meta 60 days to review its findings.
