According to Forbes, in October 2025, Meta’s independent Oversight Board issued a landmark decision calling on the social media giant to address information asymmetries during armed conflicts. The case involved two Facebook users in Syria who posted content about Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in late 2024, an organization designated as terrorist by the U.N. Security Council but which had overthrown the Assad regime. Meta removed the posts and demoted their reach, forcing the users to appeal to the Oversight Board after exhausting internal options. The board majority found the removals inconsistent with Meta’s human rights responsibilities, noting the public interest in receiving safety information during rapidly evolving conflicts. They overturned Meta’s decision and required the posts be restored with a newsworthiness allowance, while a minority disagreed, arguing the posts contained calls for violence without safety value.
The real problem with conflict moderation
Here’s the thing about content moderation during wars – it’s basically impossible to get right. The board nailed it when they said communication becomes “truncated” during conflicts. When you’re in a war zone and the group running your area is designated as terrorist, how do you discuss them without violating policies? Meta’s current approach creates this absurd situation where you can’t even figure out what you’re allowed to say because the Dangerous Organizations policy doesn’t publicly list which groups are off-limits.
And the violence policy creates even more weirdness. Meta allows calls for violence against listed terrorist entities but prohibits them against regular militaries. So depending on who’s shooting at you, the rules change. That’s not just inconsistent – it’s potentially deadly when people need accurate information to survive.
The transparency crisis nobody’s talking about
The board called out something really important that most people miss. There’s a huge gap between what Meta publicly says about its policies and the internal guidance moderators actually use. They mentioned the “social and political discourse” exception that’s supposed to allow discussion of dangerous groups – but it’s so vague that nobody knows what actually qualifies.
Think about it. If you’re in Syria and HTS is now the governing authority in your area, how do you talk about them without getting flagged? The board said Meta’s refusal to tell users which organizations can’t be discussed is “particularly problematic” when those groups are acting as de facto governments. That’s not just a content moderation issue – it’s a public safety crisis.
Where does this actually go?
So what happens now? The board made some pretty sweeping recommendations that could fundamentally change how Meta operates in conflict zones. They want the company to study how its policies affect information access and civilian protection. They’re pushing for more transparency about which groups are prohibited. And they want clearer rules about when discussion of dangerous organizations is allowed.
But here’s the million-dollar question: will Meta actually implement these changes? The Oversight Board can make recommendations, but it can’t force Meta to do anything. The company has a track record of being… selective about which recommendations it follows. Given that this affects multiple ongoing conflicts beyond just Syria, the stakes are incredibly high.
The board’s decision highlights something crucial – content moderation isn’t just about removing bad stuff anymore. During conflicts, it becomes about life and death information access. When platforms like Meta’s policies create information vacuums, they’re not just violating human rights – they’re potentially putting real people in danger. That’s a responsibility these companies clearly weren’t prepared for.
