6 ms·
Meta repeatedly snubs EU body over Facebook and Instagram user bans
- AtlasBarfed 5mo agoI hope they find them a billion dollars a day
- nonethewiser 5mo agoThey are not breaking EU law. >Under EU law, online platforms should "engage in good faith" with the body, but its decision is not legally binding. It's fine if you just want to see Facebook suffer but let's not pretend they are breaking the law.
- nonethewiser 5mo ago[flagged]
- Beretta_Vexee 5mo agoMeta on Facebook: posts about contraception, HIV or family planning will get you banned. Posting photos of drowned migrants on Italian beaches with hateful messages? That’s cool, bro free speech.
- kypro 5mo agoThis is actually true? Facebook bans users who talk about contraception and HIV? I don't use Facebook so no idea if this is true or not personally, but ChatGPT seems to think this isn't true and that if it does happen it's probably a mistake?
- SlinkyOnStairs 5mo agoRespectfully, do a Google search and not a ChatGPT one. Facebook's recent nonsense is fairly well documented. (They have also gone back and forth on this a few times) https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/dec/11/meta-shuts-down-global-accounts-linked-to-abortion-advice-and-queer-content https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/dec/11/m...
- GJim 5mo ago> ChatGPT seems to think this isn't true Please don't do this. Quote an authoritative source, not some AI bot known for ~hallucinating~ bullshitting. This goes double when dealing with such an emotive subject.
- llm_nerd 5mo agoI assume they're talking about https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/dec/11/meta-shuts-down-global-accounts-linked-to-abortion-advice-and-queer-content https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/dec/11/m... Meta is a garbage company. An absolutely fetid cancer on humanity that offers zero good and all bad. Most companies have good and bad. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Valve, and so on. They have the things that should be criticized, but have some good they bring to the world. Meta -- just a malignant, cancerous venue for stupidity. An organization that exists on the backs of scammers, cons, hate, disinformation, and so on. Like use Instagram for a day and it's just amazing that this hive of villainy and scum hasn't been banned every country worldwide but the one where the plutocrats run the country.
- alex1138 5mo agoI'll add that Meta doesn't actually physically work on top of that What do we want from companies? Companies tied to a real identity, social networking. You want a way for people to message you - ...oops https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433 ...oops https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6090712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6090712 ...oops https://www.reddit.com/r/facebook/comments/1c0xfdz/messenger_messed_up_since_endtoend_encryption/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facebook/comments/1c0xfdz/messenger... ...and a way to see people's status updates. ...oops https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719 Seriously has any CEO of a tech company been caught doing what MZ has done? Oops. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16770818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16770818, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122)
- dbdr 5mo agoThe URL of the source for the last link is not working, this is the updated version: https://boingboing.net/2010/09/14/damning-zuckerberg-i.html https://boingboing.net/2010/09/14/damning-zuckerberg-i.html
- drivebyhooting 5mo agoWell they did release torch…
- cryo32 5mo agoThat's about right. Instagram is the worst. "We won't remove this because it doesn't violate our content policy - just block the user if you don't like it". Yeah just seen someone's head cut off with a machete. Not even joking. That'll stay with me forever.
- baobabKoodaa 5mo agoThe one consistent moderation policy of all these platforms appear to be that they are pro-violence. Posting graphic images of extreme violence so that the images get seen by people who very much DO NOT want to see violence is for some reason a-okay.
- camillomiller 5mo agoThere's more and worse. A friend has been making a point of sending me Instagram Reels of OnlyFans performers showing their genitals briefly without getting banned or without the reels being removed. Some of those stay up for months. Don't judge, the friend is interested in the way they find interesting solutions to bypass censorship, more than the content. Or so he says. And LOL, no, I'm not "the friend". This to say, that they are absolutely not in control of their platforms, except for heavily political content, and speech-related content. Flash a vulva quickly enough by using smart lighting, and they won't catch it. I guess we'll still have that in our dystopian future. Zuckerberg social medias are but a cancer to society. That has become fundamentally clear. They need to be so heavily regulated that they become unrecognizable, or they should be destroyed with all means possible (legally, of course).
- snowpid 5mo agoHonestly Meta is just plain stupid. These formats are an informal way to avoid strong regulation but solve problems and used in many settings of govermental regulation as a first try. Snubbing them will increase the chance of hard regulation. I guess Zucki, Meta and SV folks (proofed on HN itself) just drunk too much "EU is declining because of regulation" and it will end like Lightning and Apple.
- mrits 5mo agoThe US is moving rapidly away from EU towards Asia. EU acts like they are driving this.
- snowpid 5mo agoare you sure? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8p61v7l68o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8p61v7l68o https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/defense/japan-eyes-european-defense-development-tie-up-under-eu-initiative https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/defense/japan-eyes-european...
- riffraff 5mo agoJapan is also already in the world's largest free trade agreement with the EU[0] and in a joint development program for a next generation fighter plane with Italy and the UK[1]. The US has squandered a massive amount of goodwill since the first Trump presidency. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93European_Union_Comprehensive_Economic_Partnership_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93European_Union_C... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Air_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Air_Programme
- kaveh_h 5mo agoAsia will ignore US deals, especially on social media. Look at Australia are even more hawkish than EU. Japan and South Korea are more culturally close to China when it comes to social harmony and the will probably follow suit when it comes to be strict on social media even if they allow US media it will be by much stricter rules than US.
- bluegatty 5mo agoI don't know if the regulations are reasonable (often there is government overreach) but I don't mind if they were just banned outright. I don't think Meta crates economic civic value. The time spent away from Meta would be better used for almost any other purpose. Feels 'authoritarian' but the same reason FB/IN is bad for teens is the same reason it's bad for regular people. I mean, obviously we can't go around banning companies, but still ... it would be good.
- embedding-shape 5mo agoWhen you have a business and you're trying to reach people, social media works surprisingly well, as long as you don't get banned for arbitrary reasons.
- bluegatty 5mo agoIt would be replaced by other avenues. 'Because Advertising' has to be the worst reason imaginable to keep a system in place.
- embedding-shape 5mo agoBut how would these "other avenues" be legal if your hypothetical scenario makes the "previous avenues" illegal?
- jmye 5mo agoWhy are you assuming GP is saying literally anything other than "Ban Meta"? It's maybe a dubious response, but there's no reason to conflate social media with advertising via websites other than to try to create false cover for Meta.
- embedding-shape 5mo agoI guess I was assuming GP was making a larger statement than literally just "Ban Meta" as that'd be oddly specific, they must be talking about "social media" at large, or the very least "social media like Facebook does it", at least that's my charitable take on what they wrote, I might have misassumed indeed.
- skeledrew 5mo agoUnless a user is paying money or otherwise in a legally binding contract that would be breached by a ban, I see no reason why a company shouldn't be able to ban them even on a whim. Having an account on a company's platform is a privilege, not a right.
- sbarre 5mo agoThis might feel like a reasonable take in isolation, but if you take it in context of today's society, and how everything actually works, it's not reasonable or realistic. Nor is it empathetic in any way. These social media companies have created an environment where they are the dominant, near-exclusive, medium for communication in our digital age. If you are running a consumer-facing business in 2026 you *must* be on these platforms. Given that these companies have actively pursued these positions they now hold, do you not feel they have a responsibility to be fair, reliable and trustworthy? That they have some obligation to their users, paying or not. They are choosing to offer the service for free, and they do make money on you regardless. Losing your business accounts on Meta or Tiktok or Youtube can have catastrophic real-world consequences. And mistakes happen all the time, so you can't realistically assume every ban or cancellation is justified or correct.
- Barbing 5mo agoIt’s hard to wrap up the past couple decades of tech building out their utility-like selves, showing how it breaks a heuristic of “it’s their business-just don’t use it”, so I’m impressed how well you’ve done it.
- skeledrew 5mo agoIn any case it's the users who built these companies by using their platform. It's users who need to rally and migrate away in solidarity with those being banned or whatever it may be. I'd say expecting companies to not do whatever they consider is in their best interest is what's not reasonable nor realistic. A company exists to make money; if banning certain users advances that mandate then it's free and expected to. Again, unless there's some legal basis to counteract that decision.
- 5mo ago
- embedding-shape 5mo ago> An independent body which hears disputes from social media users in the EU says Meta virtually never replies when it raises cases of people who say they have been wrongly banned from their accounts. Yup, "victim" of exactly that here. Had a restaurant with a Facebook + Instagram page, as bunch of people find new places that way apparently, maybe 20-30% of the people we talked to found us via those properties, so hard to just give up even if you disagree, unless you're in a really great location already, which we weren't. At one point, our Instagram page was banned, no reason provided, and impossible to reach a human, the Facebook page continued working without issues. Must have reached out and "appealed" like 10 times, eventually we gave up and the page seems to remain banned today still.
- shevy-java 5mo ago> Had a restaurant with a Facebook + Instagram page But this here is already a prior problem - you depend on these US companies in the first place. The EU could easily make it free to have a homepage associated for no cost. That would be something. Everyone gets a homepage for free, say, one business per EU citizen. Why is the system screwing us over to depend on US companies here?
- embedding-shape 5mo agoWe had a website, that's besides the point. You want to be where people already are, which for American tourists, will be American social media. It's not a choice between "be on social media and survive, or don't", it's "reach the audience you're trying to reach or don't", not a matter of survival.
- dylan604 5mo agoAs long as you're using it as just another bit of marketing/advertising, it seems like a no brainer. It's those companies that only exist because FB/Insta/Twit/etc exist that are really using suspect business model. Sounds to me like you're using it as designed. GP is out of balance to me.
- 5mo ago
- shevy-java 5mo agoNormally I'd go - more fines against Meta are great. So, no problem with that. But ... This whole "hate speech" is nothing but censorship. I understand that these greedy US giant corporations ruin a lot and abuse the heck out of everyone, but the EU is also incredibly incompetent here. What the heck is even "hate" speech? We are forbidden from criticism? The USA has the freedom of speech amendment. What's the EU solution here - arbitrary censorship? I totally disagree with that notion, and whether it is Meta or anyone else, this is a principle question. The EU should use all that money to invest into more important things than this fakeroy "hate" speech.
- cindyllm 5mo ago[dead]
- JohnMakin 5mo agoIf you think calling black footballers monkeys isn't hate speech, there is no explaining anything to you about this topic. Meanwhile if you're even slightly dickish to one of these people you will get immediately warned or shadowbanned. Meanwhile the post, get notified 9 months later that they reviewed it and found it doesn't violate their terms of service.
- riffraff 5mo agohate speech in the EU is "incitement to violence or hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin"[0]. You should be able to see criticism is fine, while calling people "stupid monkeys" is not. But this isn't even about the EU's definition: Facebook & co have their own definition of hate speech, and they are not holding it up. [0] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/no-place-hate-europe-united-against-hatred_en#what-does-the-eu-law-say https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/ju...
- lovich 5mo agoThe literal forum we are communicating on will ban you for hate speech. I’ve been banned on multiple social media cites for quoting the current president because he has full free speech and we do not. Pretending that hate speech isn’t a known term is being actively ignorant even though there can be real arguments about where the line is drawn.
- camillomiller 5mo agoFuck Zuckerberg, fuck its ilk of careless evil billionaires.
- Sol- 5mo agoThe EU's attitude to American tech firms is weird. On the one hand, they have extrajudicial private entities they outsource censorship requests to ("trusted flaggers"), which the companies have to follow at the threat of massive fines and which therefore creates the incentive to ban quickly. On the other hand, there is stuff like this where they created another arbitrary "voluntary" mechanism to punish the companies for banning too much. I think ultimately the EU just wants a set of rules to use as a pretense to levy fines on big tech.
- EA-3167 5mo agoIt's almost as though they want to be the government making the rules, rather than sitting back and letting the likes of META do whatever they want. The imperfect approach comes down to the reality of politics.
- J-Kuhn 5mo agoYou assume that the EU acts in a coherent manner. I think that premise is wrong - there are many interest groups, and by luck/lobbying/reaching critical mass/... they manage to put one of their interests into a law.
- dgellow 5mo agoThere are no fines at all in this story.
- stefan_ 5mo agoThere are no fines, this is about having recourse when big tech randomly bans you. Which you will remember, is a very common outcry on this very page. This is just an uninformed EU rant.
- genxy 5mo agoThe EU should ban his yacht from being serviced in the EU. https://www.superyachtfan.com/yacht/launchpad/location/#TRPLINKPROCESSED https://www.superyachtfan.com/yacht/launchpad/location/#TRPL...
- barbazoo 5mo agoCareful, we've seen with Russian oligarchs they really don't like it when you mess with their boats.
- game_the0ry 5mo agoAt this point, meta could buy the EU.
- embedding-shape 5mo agoEverything is absolutely for sale, if we did things The American Way but luckily we aren't, so good luck buying it :)
- dylan604 5mo agoBuying it doesn't necessarily have to mean becoming owner of the physical thing. You could buy the EU by spending enough money with the politicians that you essentially get to do whatever you wanted as if you owned the physical thing without actually having the burden of ownership.
- embedding-shape 5mo ago> You could buy the EU by spending enough money with the politicians Alright, so given this is your belief, why wouldn't you think that this has already been done, if it's possible? No one felt like buying the EU until in the future? Or maybe, it might actually be harder than you think?
- dylan604 5mo agoCurrently, they are focused on owning the US. You'll see they are well on their way. The eye of Sauron hasn't been focused on the EU just yet.
- embedding-shape 5mo agoWhich again makes sense, the US entire philosophy is "Everything is for sale, if you can afford it, you can buy it", so of course that's what happens now. However, laws, politics and more is slightly different in the EU and Europe, hence you can't just wave money and get your wave, unlike the US currently.
- krunger 5mo ago[dead]
- Ralfp 5mo agoI know a person managing social media for an elected politician in Poland. On the first day Meta banned the account for impersonation. Protest was closed automatically within a hour with the usual "sorry you aint happy with this but the ban stands" response. There was no way to contact a human about this... unless you buy meta premium support or whatever that is called. That will give you a human handler to contact! This person asked for a paper work to verify. Next day after receiving the paper work, account was unbanned. For 15 minutes. It was then banned automatically for impersonation. At this point the handler suggested not naming the account after politician but instead making it "Fans of the Jane Doe " page or something like that. My understanding is that this was then escalated to one of ministries who did reach out Meta in Poland with request for explanations, after which account was unbanned and flagged as verified by Meta to exclude it from future automatic bans.
- joe_mamba 5mo ago> It was then banned automatically for impersonation. Sorry, but if it wouldn't have been banned then there would be 1000x legitimately looking fake BOT accounts impersonating every politician in Europe, which IMHO is a lot worse considering the disinformation campaigns of trolls and foreign adversaries, so of course Meta would err on the side of caution here and assume every account of a politician is 99,9999% gonna be a bot and just ban it instantly. The only correct solution is META having human support staff on call for such situations which i thought they did in Dublin, at least last time I checked ~8 or so years ago.
- rambojohnson 5mo agoexcept you dont' get a "human" when you buy "premium support", you get a chatbot with elevated access. source: ex-colleague who use to work at CSE team for IG and Whatsapp.
- ryanisnan 5mo agoToothless regulation fails to yield meaningful change - shocker.
- ticulatedspline 5mo agoNot sure that's isolated to the EU, all these companies seem to snub everyone when it comes to banning. Seems unless you have enough followers to make the news cycle you're SOL when it comes to fighting those bans.
- Henchman21 5mo agoHere’s an idea: if you don’t or won’t have human customer support you can’t be in business. Not claiming its a good idea, just an idea. We’re capable of reining in this type of behavior. Its just that we don’t want to.
- penguin_booze 5mo agoAmerican corporations are in the business of turning their lobotomised users against governments. It's like a drug dealer sending an addict to steal from or attack their parents.
- intended 5mo agoThe ideas behind these bodies is really cool, and is actually a policy that is a great start to build further on. The idea is that users can send moderation actions to be reviewed to an independent body. Users pay 10% to 20% of the cost and the platform pays the remainder. The out of court settlement body then reviews the case, and provides a verdict. This way there is actually an avenue of recourse that isn’t just the platform, and its external review. I do not believe there are any penalties that can be issued. They came into existence about a year or two ago, so they are pretty new, so room for improvement exists.
- davissmith12 5mo ago[dead]