Meta has said its use of “guardrails”, a practice it says was aimed at preventing the incorrect flagging of content from some of the top advertisers on the platform, has been public knowledge and does not mean those spending the most get free rein.

The Financial Times has reported that it has seen internal Meta documents from 2023 which reveal the company had “introduced a series of ‘guardrails’ that protect high spenders”. The paper has said the practice led to Meta exempting some of its top advertisers “from its usual content moderation process.”

But the company has rejected any wrongdoing and said “the FT’s reporting is “simply inaccurate” and “based on a cherry-picked reading of documents that clearly state this effort was intended to address something we’ve been very public about: preventing mistakes in enforcement”. 

The Facebook and WhatsApp parent company uses a combination of AI and human oversight to prevent material that breaks its internal rules, such as scams or harmful content.

But system erros have meant that, sometimes, content has been incorrectly flagged for breaching rules and eventually removed, including content by some of Meta’s top-spending advertisers.

Revised approach to moderation

Earlier this week, Meta announced it was ending its third-party fact-checking programme and will instead rely on its users to flag misinformation.”

But experts have called the move “controversial” and said it “will similarly lead to more harmful content being shown to users in its apps.”

The co-chair of the independent body that reviews Facebook and Instagram told the BBC this week she was “very concerned” about sweeping changes to what content is allowed on the platforms.

Online advertisements are Meta’s biggest revenue generation source. According to figures from market intelligence firm Sensor Tower, “In 2024, Meta accounted for 46% of digital US ad spend.”

And within that context, these latest reports about Meta’s moderation approach will put further pressure on the social media giant.

Political pressure?

Meta’s content moderation policy has also received criticism from politicians, who have accused the platform of deliberately suppressing conservative speech.

Incoming US president Donald Trump last year accused owner Mark Zuckerberg of plotting against him during the 2020 elections, and has warned Zuckerberg he will spend the rest of his life in prison if he did so again.

In response, Meta has said it will be taking a more “personalised approach to politics” as part of the company’s revised approach to content moderation.

It promised to “allow more speech by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations.”

But critics of the new plans are concerned about what content would be allowed online as part of the changes.

Helle Thorning-Schmidt, from Meta’s oversight board, told the BBC: “We are seeing many instances where hate speech can lead to real-life harm, so we will be watching that space very carefully.”