<\/p>\n
Israel\u2019s government asked<\/span> Meta to censor social media content about its ongoing war against Iran, according to internal documents viewed by The Intercept.<\/p>\n Company records show that Israel petitioned Meta to take down Facebook and Instagram posts expressing support for Iran, opposition to Israel, and even depictions of Iranian missile impacts.<\/p>\n The government flagged a variety of materials related to the war, including posts mourning the death of Ayatollah Khamenei following his assassination by the U.S. and Israel on the opening day of the conflict, content supportive of Iran\u2019s retaliatory attacks, and Iranian accounts that shared military analysis and propaganda sympathetic to the Iranian regime\u2019s perspective.<\/p>\n \u201cGovernments wanting to suppress speech that is critical of their war efforts is as old as time.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n In some cases, Meta complied with the censorship requests, the records show, though it is unclear on what grounds. Meta maintains that it only removes content as required by law or materials that violate its speech policies.<\/p>\n When asked how many Iran-related takedown requests had been granted to date since the war began, the company did not answer. The Israeli Ministry of Justice, which submits takedown requests to social media platforms, did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Israel\u2019s social media lobbying is not new<\/a>; for years the nation has leaned on its close relationship with Meta to push for targeted enforcement of the company\u2019s content moderation rulebook.<\/p>\n Israel\u2019s Office of the State Attorney routinely lodges complaints to social media platforms on behalf of state security agencies about content deemed illegal or said to promote \u201cterrorism,\u201d according to its website. In the documents reviewed by The Intercept, the office in some cases made no claim that the social media content violated Israeli law. Instead, the office asked that posts or accounts should be removed because they were in violation of Meta\u2019s content moderation rulebook.<\/p>\n Meta, for instance, designates Iran\u2019s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a \u201cDangerous Organization<\/a>,\u201d and prohibits users from engaging in many forms of positive speech about its actions. This means posts supportive of retaliatory missile launches by the IRGC, for instance, could run afoul of the company\u2019s rules. No such prohibition exists for users who post favorably about the U.S. or Israeli militaries.<\/p>\n Meta did not respond to questions about the Iran war requests, but spokesperson Daniel Roberts provided a statement to The Intercept. \u201cAnyone is able to report content they think violates our rules. Regardless of who or how a piece of content is flagged, we assess it based on our policies, which govern what is and isn\u2019t allowed on our platform. It is wrong and irresponsible to imply that these requests are in any way unusual or improper.\u201d<\/p>\n A company headquartered in California can determine what is or is not permissible speech for billions of users across the world, only a fraction of whom are American.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Meta has faced scrutiny, specifically in the Middle East, for removing content that doesn\u2019t violate the company\u2019s rules. A 2022 audit commissioned by the company itself<\/a> found discrepancies in its content moderation practices between Arabic and Hebrew content. \u201cArabic content had greater over-enforcement (e.g., erroneously removing Palestinian voice) on a per user basis.\u201d the company found. A 2023 report<\/a> by the company\u2019s inhouse Oversight Board described the \u201cover-enforcement\u201d of the company\u2019s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals blacklist, disproportionately<\/a> composed of Muslim and Middle Eastern entities.<\/p>\n Meta has long claimed that as an American company, it is legally required to sometimes remove content pertaining to certain entities sanctioned by the U.S., such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. But legal scholars say that has little to no precedent or basis in existing sanctions law, which focus on matters of material support rather than political speech. It\u2019s a policy that has created an immense ideological slant: A company headquartered in California can determine what is or is not permissible speech for billions of users across the world, only a fraction of whom are American.<\/p>\n Further adding to the imbalance when it comes to Middle East crises is the fact that Meta has granted Israel privileged access to its content moderation policy teams. In 2024, The Intercept reported how Meta employee Jordana Cutler, a former aide to Benjamin Netanyahu, served as a dedicated liaison to the Israeli government<\/a>, advocating for the country\u2019s interests and helping facilitate the removal of unwanted speech. Few other countries in the world have a dedicated representative within Meta \u2014 in 2020, a similar policy head for India market resigned after revelations<\/a> she had lobbied for rule enforcement that favored India\u2019s ruling Hindu nationalist party. Asked if Cutler has had a role in facilitating Israeli takedown requests of content relating to the war, Meta did not respond.<\/p>\n \u201cMeta\u2019s close relationship with the Israeli government for takedown requests has been a long-standing issue,\u201d Evelyn Douek, a Stanford Law School professor and scholar of digital speech policies, told The Intercept. \u201cMeta\u2019s acquiescence in lots of takedown requests has been a long-standing practice.\u201d<\/p>\n These asymmetries of censorship power are particularly sensitive during times of war, said Douek.<\/p>\n \u201cGovernments wanting to suppress speech that is critical of their war efforts is as old as time,\u201d she said. \u201cAllowing governments to claim national security reasons to suppress speech willy-nilly would obliterate the value of speech protections.\u201d<\/p>\n According to a source familiar with the matter, Israel lobbied Meta to implement a blanket rule restricting imagery of war damage within its territory, mirroring an Israeli news media censorship policy that bars journalists from documenting weapon impacts without military approval<\/a>. Meta has so far declined to implement such a policy for its billions of global users, the source said. Meta did not respond to questions about the status of this request.<\/p>\n\n
\n