Palestinian Voices Face Renewed Questions Over Visibility on Meta Platforms

Palestinian journalists, activists and digital-rights advocates are raising fresh concerns about the visibility of Palestine-related content on Facebook and Instagram, after a new study identified thousands of cases involving account suspensions, content removals, reduced reach and other forms of enforcement.

The research, titled The Platformicide of Palestine 2021–2025, was published in June 2026 by 7amleh, the Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, in partnership with Dr Fabio Cristiano of Utrecht University.

Researchers examined 3,520 cases submitted to 7amleh’s Palestinian Observatory for Digital Rights Violations, known as 7or, between January 2021 and December 2025. The cases were divided almost evenly between Facebook and Instagram, with 1,772 involving Facebook and 1,748 involving Instagram.

The study argues that the pattern cannot be understood simply as a collection of isolated moderation mistakes. Instead, its authors describe a wider system in which Palestinian and pro-Palestinian users can experience account restrictions, reduced distribution, content removal and limited access to platform features.

Meta disputes the broader characterisation of its moderation approach and has previously pointed to independent reviews of its policies in Israel and Palestine, as well as changes it says were introduced to improve enforcement and reduce errors.

Journalists report sharp drops in reach

Among those describing the effects of platform restrictions is Jerusalem-based journalist Faten Elwan, who has built an Instagram audience of more than 300,000 followers.

Elwan says her account was suspended repeatedly after the outbreak of the Gaza war and that her ability to reach followers has subsequently fallen dramatically.

She described an experience in which a post about a personal outing received tens of thousands of views after her account was restored, while subsequent stories published shortly afterwards attracted only a few hundred views.

For Elwan, the issue is not simply whether individual posts are removed. She argues that a reduction in distribution can make an account effectively invisible even when the profile remains online.

Users have also told her they can locate her profile only when they deliberately search for her name, she said.

Her experience illustrates a broader concern raised by digital-rights organisations: that platform enforcement can affect the distribution of content without necessarily resulting in a visible account ban.

The 7amleh study specifically examined these less visible forms of enforcement, including reduced distribution, recommendation filtering and restrictions on features such as live broadcasting.

The study’s findings

Of the 3,520 cases examined by the researchers, only 1,144, or 32.5 per cent, had an identifiable policy violation associated with them.

In the remaining cases, researchers said they could not clearly establish which specific Meta policy had allegedly been violated based on the information available to the affected users or the material submitted to 7or.

The report says Meta’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals, or DOI, policy featured prominently among cases where researchers could identify an enforcement basis.

The policy is designed to prevent the promotion or support of organisations and individuals that Meta classifies as dangerous, including groups associated with terrorism or violent activity.

According to the study, DOI was identified in 57.2 per cent of cases where a specific policy could be established. Among journalists in the dataset, the proportion was higher, at 71.1 per cent.

Researchers argue that the application of the policy can create difficulties when journalists, researchers or activists discuss organisations or political movements as part of reporting or public debate.

The central concern is not that platforms should permit content that directly promotes violence, but that legitimate journalism and political discussion can be caught by enforcement systems designed primarily to address dangerous actors.

Meta says it has made changes

Meta has previously acknowledged that moderating content related to Israel and Palestine presents unusually difficult challenges.

Following an independent human-rights due-diligence exercise concerning the May 2021 escalation, Meta said it accepted or partially accepted most of the report’s recommendations and committed to changes involving its treatment of political discussion and dangerous organisations.

The company also said it had introduced specialist moderation arrangements involving Arabic and Hebrew language expertise and had worked to improve how its systems handled content from the region.

Meta’s own human-rights reporting has similarly described measures intended to improve protections for journalists and human-rights defenders while addressing harmful content and threats.

These changes provide an important part of the wider debate because they demonstrate that Meta has recognised shortcomings in its previous approach and has attempted to address them.

The disagreement is over whether those measures have been sufficient.

Restrictions can affect reporting from Gaza

For journalists working in and around Gaza, social media platforms have become important distribution channels for photographs, videos, interviews and eyewitness accounts.

When an account is suspended or its distribution falls significantly, the impact can therefore extend beyond the individual journalist.

It can affect how quickly information reaches audiences, how material is circulated by other users and whether footage from an active conflict enters wider public discussion.

7amleh’s researchers argue that the consequences are especially serious when platforms remove or restrict material documenting alleged abuses.

Digital material can potentially become relevant to future investigations if it preserves evidence of attacks, displacement or other events. The researchers therefore contend that content moderation decisions can have implications beyond ordinary social-media engagement.

At the same time, platforms face a difficult responsibility: material involving armed groups, graphic violence or extremist organisations can present genuine risks, while journalists and human-rights organisations may need to discuss the same subjects for legitimate public-interest reasons.

The challenge is determining where reporting and documentation end and prohibited advocacy begins.

Fear can produce self-censorship

The research also highlights an effect that may be harder to measure than deleted posts: self-censorship.

Journalists who see colleagues lose accounts or have content restricted may become more cautious about what they publish, even when their own accounts have not been penalised.

Palestinian media specialist Maisoon Zoubi described this as a climate of uncertainty in which journalists may avoid publishing certain images, interviews or reports because they fear attracting complaints or enforcement.

That concern can influence editorial decisions before any platform actually removes content.

It also makes the overall impact of moderation difficult to measure. Counting deleted posts does not capture material that journalists decide not to publish because they believe doing so could jeopardise their accounts or reach.

7amleh’s wider monitoring work reflects the scale of these concerns. Its 2025 annual report says the organisation documented 3,465 digital-rights violations through its 7or observatory during that year.

Appeals remain a major concern

Another major issue raised by the research is what happens after a user challenges a moderation decision.

7amleh says it submitted more than 2,800 appeals to Meta on behalf of affected users during the five-year period examined by the report. Nearly half received no response, according to the organisation’s findings.

That is significant because an appeal mechanism is only effective if users can obtain a meaningful review of their case.

The lack of a clear explanation can leave journalists and activists uncertain about whether their content violated a specific rule, whether the decision resulted from an automated system or whether their account was affected by coordinated reporting.

7amleh has also questioned whether its status as a Meta Trusted Partner has produced sufficient access to effective remedies.

The organisation argues that formal escalation channels are not enough if users cannot obtain clear explanations or timely decisions.

A wider digital-rights debate

The dispute over Palestinian content is part of a much broader debate about the power of technology companies to determine what information is visible online.

Meta operates platforms used by billions of people, giving its moderation decisions significant influence over public communication.

That power becomes especially consequential during wars and political crises, when social networks can become major sources of eyewitness information.

The 7amleh report therefore calls for changes including greater transparency, stronger protections for journalism and public-interest content, improvements in Arabic-language moderation and more effective appeals systems.

The researchers also recommend an independent human-rights assessment of Meta’s moderation practices relating to Palestine.

For Meta, the challenge is balancing enforcement against violent or dangerous content with its responsibility to allow legitimate political debate and journalism.

Why the issue matters beyond social media

The dispute is ultimately about more than follower numbers or individual Instagram accounts.

For Palestinian journalists, social platforms can be essential tools for reaching audiences when conventional media access is restricted.

For researchers and rights organisations, digital posts can provide contemporaneous records of events.

For audiences outside the region, social media can offer access to firsthand accounts that may otherwise be difficult to obtain.

But those benefits exist alongside genuine moderation challenges. Platforms must deal with graphic material, hate speech, incitement and content associated with armed organisations, while attempting to distinguish such material from reporting, documentation and political discussion.

The 7amleh research argues that Meta’s existing system has not consistently achieved that balance for Palestinian users.

Meta, meanwhile, has pointed to reforms undertaken following earlier independent assessments and says it has continued to adjust its policies and enforcement systems.

The continuing disagreement suggests that the question is unlikely to disappear soon.

As conflicts increasingly unfold alongside social-media reporting, decisions made by private technology companies can shape not only what audiences see but also which voices are able to participate in the public record.

For Palestinian journalists and digital-rights advocates, the demand is therefore not simply for fewer account suspensions. They are seeking clearer rules, meaningful appeals, consistent enforcement and greater transparency over how decisions affecting Palestine-related content are made.

The debate over Meta’s platforms has consequently become part of a much larger question: who controls the digital record of a conflict, and what safeguards should exist when that record is controlled by a private technology company?