Deeplinks

This is the ninth installment in a blog series documenting EFF’s findings from the Stop Censoring Abortion campaign. You can read additional posts here.  

Meta has been getting content moderation wrong for years, like most platforms that host user-generated content. Sometimes it’s a result of deliberate design choices—privacy rollbacks, opaque policies, features that prioritize growth over safety—made even when the company knows that those choices could negatively impact users. Other times, it’s simply the inevitable outcome of trying to govern billions of posts with a mix of algorithms and overstretched human reviewers. Importantly, users shouldn’t have to worry about their posts being deleted or their accounts getting banned when they share factual health information that doesn’t violate the platforms' policies. But knowing more about what the algorithmic moderation is likely to flag can help you to avoid its mistakes. 

We analyzed the roughly one-hundred survey submissions we received from social media users in response to our Stop Censoring Abortion campaign. Their stories revealed some clear patterns: certain words, images, and phrases seemed to trigger takedowns, even when posts didn’t come close to violating Meta’s rules. 

For example, your post linking to information on how people are accessing abortion pills online clearly is not an offer to buy or sell pills, but an algorithm, or a human content reviewer who doesn’t know for sure, might wrongly flag it for violating Meta’s policies on promoting or selling “restricted goods.” 

That doesn’t mean you’re powerless. For years, people have used “algospeak”—creative spelling, euphemisms, or indirection—to sidestep platform filters. Abortion rights advocates are now forced into similar strategies, even when their speech is perfectly legal. It’s not fair, but it might help you keep your content online. Here are some things we learned from our survey: 

While traditional social media platforms can help people reach larger audiences, using them also generally means you have to hand over control of what you and others are able to see to the people who run the company. This is the deal that large platforms offer—and while most of us want platforms to moderate some content (even if that moderation is imperfect), current systems of moderation often reflect existing societal power imbalances and impact marginalized voices the most. 

There are ways companies and governments could better balance the power between users and platforms. In the meantime, there are steps you can take right now to break the hold these platforms have:   

Big platforms give you reach, but they also set the rules—and those rules usually favor corporate interests over human rights. You don’t have to accept that as the only way forward: 

If you’re working in abortion access—whether as a provider, activist, or volunteer—your privacy and security matter. The same is true for patients. Check out EFF’s Surveillance Self-Defense for tailored guides. Look at resources from groups like Digital Defense Fund and learn how location tracking tools can endanger abortion access. If you run an organization, consider some of the ways you can minimize what information you collect about patients, clients, or customers, in our guide to Online Privacy for Nonprofits. 

Platforms like Meta insist they want to balance free expression and safety, but their blunt systems consistently end up reinforcing existing inequalities—silencing the very people who most need to be heard. Until they do better, it’s on us to protect ourselves, share our stories, and keep building the kind of internet that respects our rights. 

This is the ninth post in our blog series documenting the findings from our Stop Censoring Abortion campaign. Read more in the series: https://www.eff.org/pages/stop-censoring-abortion 

Affected by unjust censorship? Share your story using the hashtag #StopCensoringAbortion. Amplify censored posts and accounts, share screenshots of removals and platform messages—together, we can demonstrate how these policies harm real people.  

Flock Safety, the police technology company most notable for their extensive network of automated license plate readers spread throughout the United States, is rolling out a new and troubling product that may create headaches for the cities that adopt it: detection of “human distress” via audio. As part of their suite of technologies, Flock has been pushing Raven, their version of acoustic gunshot detection. These devices capture sounds in public places and use machine learning to try to identify gunshots and then alert police—but EFF has long warned that they are also high powered microphones parked above densely-populated city streets. Cities now have one more reason to follow the lead of many other municipalities and cancel their Flock contracts, before this new feature causes civil liberties harms to residents and headaches for cities. 

In marketing materials, Flock has been touting new features to their Raven product—including the ability of the device to alert police based on sounds, including “distress.” The online ad for the product, which allows cities to apply for early access to the technology, shows the image of police getting an alert for “screaming.” 

It’s unclear how this technology works. For acoustic gunshot detection, generally the microphones are looking for sounds that would signify gunshots (though in practice they often mistake car backfires or fireworks for gunshots). Flock needs to come forward now with an explanation of exactly how their new technology functions. It is unclear how these devices will interact with state “eavesdropping” laws that limit listening to or recording the private conversations that often take place in public. 

Flock is no stranger to causing legal challenges for the cities and states that adopt their products. In Illinois, Flock was accused of violating state law by allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal agency, access to license plate reader data taken within the state. That’s not all. In 2023, a North Carolina judge halted the installation of Flock cameras statewide for operating in the state without a license. When the city of Evanston, Illinois recently canceled its contract with Flock, it ordered the company to take down their license plate readers–only for Flock to mysteriously reinstall them a few days later. This city has now sent Flock a cease and desist order and in the meantime, has put black tape over the cameras. For some, the technology isn’t worth its mounting downsides. As one Illinois village trustee wrote while explaining his vote to cancel the city’s contract with Flock, “According to our own Civilian Police Oversight Commission, over 99% of Flock alerts do not result in any police action.”

Gunshot detection technology is dangerous enough as it is—police showing up to alerts they think are gunfire only to find children playing with fireworks is a recipe for innocent people to get hurt. This isn’t hypothetical: in Chicago a child really was shot at by police who thought they were responding to a shooting thanks to a ShotSpotter alert. Introducing a new feature that allows these pre-installed Raven microphones all over cities to begin listening for human voices in distress is likely to open up a whole new can of unforeseen legal, civil liberties, and even bodily safety consequences.

Every day, corporations track our movements through license plate scanners, building detailed profiles of where we go, when we go there, and who we visit. When they do this to us in violation of data privacy laws, we’ve suffered a real harm—period. We shouldn’t need to prove we’ve suffered additional damage, such as physical injury or monetary loss, to have our day in court.

That's why EFF is proud to join an amicus brief in Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, a lawsuit by drivers against a corporation that allegedly violated a California statute that regulates Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs). The state trial court erroneously dismissed the case, by misinterpreting this data privacy law to require proof of extra harm beyond privacy harm. The brief was written by the ACLU of Northern California, Stanford’s Juelsgaard Clinic, and UC Law SF’s Center for Constitutional Democracy.

The amicus brief explains:

This case implicates critical questions about whether a California privacy law, enacted to protect people from harmful surveillance, is not just words on paper, but can be an effective tool for people to protect their rights and safety.

California’s Constitution and laws empower people to challenge harmful surveillance at its inception without waiting for its repercussions to manifest through additional harms. A foundation for these protections is article I, section 1, which grants Californians an inalienable right to privacy.

People in the state have long used this constitutional right to challenge the privacy-invading collection of information by private and governmental parties, not only harms that are financial, mental, or physical. Indeed, widely understood notions of privacy harm, as well as references to harm in the California Code, also demonstrate that term’s expansive meaning.

The defendant, Digital Recognition Network, also known as DRN Data, is a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions that provides access to a massive searchable database of ALPR data collected by private contractors. Its customers include law enforcement agencies and private companies, such as insurers, lenders, and repossession firms. DRN is the sister company to the infamous surveillance vendor Vigilant Solutions (now Motorola Solutions), and together they have provided data to ICE through a contract with Thomson Reuters.

The consequences of weak privacy protections are already playing out across the country. This year alone, authorities in multiple states have used license plate readers to hunt for people seeking reproductive healthcare. Police officers have used these systems to stalk romantic partners and monitor political activists. ICE has tapped into these networks to track down immigrants and their families for deportation.

This case could determine whether privacy laws have real teeth or are just words on paper. If corporations can collect your personal information with impunity—knowing that unless you can prove bodily injury or economic loss, you can’t fight back—then privacy laws lose value.

We need strong data privacy laws. We need a private right of action so when a company violates our data privacy rights, we can sue them. We need a broad definition of “harm,” so we can sue over our lost privacy rights, without having to prove collateral injury. EFF wages this battle when writing privacy laws, when interpreting those laws, and when asserting “standing” in federal and state courts.

The fight for privacy isn’t just about legal technicalities. It’s about preserving your right to move through the world without being constantly tracked, catalogued, and profiled by corporations looking to profit from your personal information.

You can read the amicus brief here.

The Financial Times reports that the U.K. is once again demanding that Apple create a backdoor into its encrypted backup services. The only change since the last time they demanded this is that the order is allegedly limited to only apply to British users. That doesn’t make it any better.

The demand uses a power called a “Technical Capability Notice” (TCN) in the U.K.’s Investigatory Powers Act. At the time of its signing we noted this law would likely be used to demand Apple spy on its users.

After the U.K. government first issued the TCN in January, Apple was forced to either create a backdoor or block its Advanced Data Protection feature—which turns on end-to-end encryption for iCloud—for all U.K. users. The company decided to remove the feature in the U.K. instead of creating the backdoor.

The initial order from January targeted the data of all Apple users. In August, the US claimed the U.K. withdrew the demand, but Apple did not re-enable Advanced Data Protection. The new order provides insight into why: the U.K. was just rewriting it to only apply to British users.

This is still an unsettling overreach that makes U.K. users less safe and less free. As we’ve said time and time again, any backdoor built for the government puts everyone at greater risk of hacking, identity theft, and fraud. It sets a dangerous precedent to demand similar data from other companies, and provides a runway for other authoritarian governments to issue comparable orders. The news of continued server-side access to users' data comes just days after the UK government announced an intrusive mandatory digital ID scheme, framed as a measure against illegal migration.

A tribunal hearing was initially set to take place in January 2026, though it’s currently unclear if that will proceed or if the new order changes the legal process. Apple must continue to refuse these types of backdoors. Breaking end-to-end encryption for one country breaks it for everyone. These repeated attempts to weaken encryption violates fundamental human rights and destroys our right to private spaces.

It's spooky season—but while jump scares may get your heart racing, catching up on digital rights news shouldn't! Our EFFector newsletter has got you covered with easy, bite-sized updates to keep you up-to-date.

In this issue, we spotlight new ALPR-enhanced police drones and how local communities can push back; unpack the ongoing TikTok “ban,” which we’ve consistently said violates the First Amendment; and celebrate a privacy win—abandoning a phone doesn't mean you've also abandoned your privacy rights.

Prefer to listen in? Check out our audio companion, where we interview EFF Staff Attorney Lisa Femia who explains the findings from our investigation into abortion censorship on social media. Catch the conversation on YouTube or the Internet Archive.

LISTEN TO EFFECTOR

EFFECTOR 37.13 - ❌ HOW META IS CENSORING ABORTION

Since 1990 EFF has published EFFector to help keep readers on the bleeding edge of their digital rights. We know that the intersection of technology, civil liberties, human rights, and the law can be complicated, so EFFector is a great way to stay on top of things. The newsletter is chock full of links to updates, announcements, blog posts, and other stories to help keep readers—and listeners—up to date on the movement to protect online privacy and free expression. 

Thank you to the supporters around the world who make our work possible! If you're not a member yet, join EFF today to help us fight for a brighter digital future.

Federal employees play a key role in safeguarding the civil liberties of millions of Americans. Our rights to privacy and free expression can only survive when we stand together to push back against overreach and ensure that technology serves all people—not just the powerful. 

That’s why EFF jumped to action earlier this year, when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) handed over sensitive employee data—Social Security numbers, benefits data, work histories, and more—to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This was a blatant violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, and it put federal workers directly at risk. 

We didn’t let it stand. Alongside federal employee unions, EFF sued OPM and DOGE in February. In June, we secured a victory when a judge ruled we were entitled to a preliminary injunction and ordered OPM to provide accounting of DOGE access to employee records. Your support makes this possible. 

Now the fight continues—and your support matters more than ever. The Office of Personnel Management is planting the seeds to undermine and potentially remove the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), the main program federal employees and retirees have long used to support charities—including EFF. For now, you can still give to EFF through the CFC this year (use our ID: 10437) and we’d appreciate your support! But with the program’s uncertain future, direct support is the best way to keep our work going strong for years to come. 

DONATE TODAY

SUPPORT EFF'S WORK DIRECTLY, BECOME A MEMBER!

When you donate directly, you join a movement of lawyers, activists, and technologists who defend privacy, call out censorship, and push back against abuses of power—everywhere from the courts to Congress and to the streets. As a member, you’ll also receive insider updates, invitations to exclusive events, and receive conversation-starting EFF gear. 

Plus, you can sustain our mission long-term with a monthly or annual donation! 

Stand with EFF. Protect privacy. Defend free expression. Support our work today. 

This is the eighth installment in a blog series documenting EFF's findings from the Stop Censoring Abortion campaign. You can read additional posts here. 

In our Stop Censoring Abortion series, we’ve documented the many ways that reproductive rights advocates have faced arbitrary censorship on Meta platforms. Since social media is the primary—and sometimes the only—way that providers, advocates, and communities can safely and effectively share timely and accurate information about abortion, it’s vitally important that platforms take steps to proactively protect this speech.

Yet, even though Meta says its moderation policies allow abortion-related speech, its enforcement of those policies tells a different story. Posts are being wrongfully flagged, accounts are disappearing without warning, and important information is being removed without clear justification.

So what explains the gap between Meta’s public commitments and its actions? And how can we push platforms to be better—to, dare we say, #StopCensoringAbortion?

After reviewing nearly one-hundred submissions and speaking with Meta to clarify their moderation practices, here’s what we’ve learned.

First, given the current landscape—with some states trying to criminalize speech about abortion—you may be wondering how much leeway platforms like Facebook and Instagram have to choose their own content moderation policies. In other words, can social media companies proactively commit to stop censoring abortion?

The answer is yes. Social media companies, including Meta, TikTok, and X, have the constitutionally protected First Amendment right to moderate user content however they see fit. They can take down posts, suspend accounts, or suppress content for virtually any reason.

The Supreme Court explicitly affirmed this right in 2023 in Moody v. Netchoice, holding that social media platforms, like newspapers, bookstores, and art galleries before them, have the First Amendment right to edit the user speech that they host and deliver to other users on their platforms. The Court also established that the government has a very limited role in dictating what social media platforms must (or must not) publish. This editorial discretion, whether granted to individuals, traditional press, or online platforms, is meant to protect these institutions from government interference and to safeguard the diversity of the public sphere—so that important conversations and movements like this one have the space to flourish.

Unfortunately, Meta is failing to meet even these basic standards. Again and again, its policies say one thing while its actual enforcement says another.

Meta has stated its intent to allow conversations about abortion to take place on its platforms. In fact, as we’ve written previously in this series, Meta has publicly insisted that posts with educational content about abortion access should not be censored, even admitting in several public statements to moderation mistakes and over-enforcement. One spokesperson told the New York Times: “We want our platforms to be a place where people can access reliable information about health services, advertisers can promote health services and everyone can discuss and debate public policies in this space. . . . That’s why we allow posts and ads about, discussing and debating abortion.”

Meta’s platform policies largely reflect this intent. But as our campaign reveals, Meta’s enforcement of those policies is wildly inconsistent. Time and again, users—including advocacy organizations, healthcare providers, and individuals sharing personal stories—have had their content taken down even though it did not actually violate any of Meta’s stated guidelines. Worse, they are often left in the dark about what happened and how to fix it.

Arbitrary enforcement like this harms abortion activists and providers by cutting them off from their audiences, wasting the effort they spend creating resources and building community on these platforms, and silencing their vital reproductive rights advocacy. And it goes without saying that it hurts users, who need access to timely, accurate, and sometimes life-saving information. At a time when abortion rights are under attack, platforms with enormous resources—like Meta—have no excuse for silencing this important speech.  

Our case studies have highlighted that when users can’t rely on platforms to apply their own rules fairly, the result is a widespread chilling effect on online speech. That’s why we are calling on Meta to adopt the following urgent changes.

Too often, platforms’ vague rules force users to guess what content might be flagged in order to avoid shadowbanning or worse, leading to needless self-censorship. To prevent this chilling effect, platforms should strive to offer users the greatest possible transparency and clarity on their policies. The policies should be clear enough that users know exactly what is allowed and what isn’t so that, for example, no one is left wondering how exactly a clip of women sharing their abortion experiences could be mislabeled as violent extremism.

If content doesn’t violate a platform’s stated policies, it should not be removed. And, per Meta’s own policies, an account should not be suspended for abortion-related content violations if it has not received any prior warnings or “strikes.” Yet as we’ve seen throughout this campaign, abortion advocates repeatedly face takedowns or even account suspensions of posts that fall entirely within Meta’s Community Standards. On such a massive scale, this selective enforcement erodes trust and chills entire communities from participating in critical conversations. 

When content is removed, Meta tends to give vague, boilerplate explanations—or none at all. Instead, users facing takedowns or suspensions deserve detailed and accurate explanations that state the policy violated, reflect the reasoning behind the actual enforcement decision, and ways to appeal the decision. Clear explanations are key to preventing wrongful censorship and ensuring that platforms remain accountable to their commitments and to their users.

Every user deserves a real chance to challenge improper enforcement decisions and have them reversed. But based on our survey responses, it seems Meta’s appeals process is broken. Many users reported that they do not receive responses to appeals, even when the content did not violate Meta’s policies, and thus have no meaningful way to challenge takedowns. Alarmingly, we found that a user’s best (and sometimes only) chance at success is to rely on a personal connection at Meta to right wrongs and restore content. This is unacceptable. Users should have a reliable and efficient appeal process that does not depend on insider access.   

Finally, automated systems cannot always handle the nuance of sensitive issues like reproductive health and advocacy. They misinterpret words, miss important cultural or political context, and wrongly flag legitimate advocacy as “dangerous.” Therefore, we call upon platforms to expand the role that human moderators play in reviewing auto-flagged content violations—especially when posts involve sensitive healthcare information or political expression.

Meta has already made the choice to allow speech about abortion on its platforms, and it has not hesitated to highlight that commitment whenever it has faced scrutiny. Now it’s time for Meta to put its money where its mouth is.

Users deserve better than a system where rules are applied at random, appeals go nowhere, and vital reproductive health information is needlessly (or negligently) silenced. If Meta truly values free speech, it must commit to moderating with fairness, transparency, and accountability.

This is the eighth post in our blog series documenting the findings from our Stop Censoring Abortion campaign. Read more at https://www.eff.org/pages/stop-censoring-abortion   

Affected by unjust censorship? Share your story using the hashtag #StopCensoringAbortion. Amplify censored posts and accounts, share screenshots of removals and platform messages—together, we can demonstrate how these policies harm real people. 

There is a lot of bad on the internet and it seems to only be getting worse. But one of the things the internet did well, and is worth preserving, is nontraditional paths for creativity, journalism, and criticism. As governments and major corporations throw up more barriers to expression—and more and more gatekeepers try to control the internet—it’s important to learn how to crash through those gates. 

In EFF's interview series, Gate Crashing, we talk to people who have used the internet to take nontraditional paths to the very traditional worlds of journalism, creativity, and criticism. We hope it's both inspiring to see these people and enlightening for anyone trying to find voices they like online.  

Our mini-series will be dropping an episode each month closing out 2025 in style.

Be sure to mark your calendar or check our socials on drop dates. If you have a friend or colleague that might be interested in watching our series, please forward this link: eff.org/gatecrashing

Check Out Episode 1

For over 35 years, EFF members have empowered attorneys, activists, and technologists to defend civil liberties and human rights online for everyone.

Tech should be a tool for the people, and we need you in this fight.

Donate Today

* This interview was originally published in December 2024. No changes have been made

Whether due to generative AI hallucinations or human sloppiness, the internet is increasingly rife with bogus news content—and you can count EFF among the victims. 

WinBuzzer published a story June 26 with the headline, “Microsoft Is Getting Sued over Using Nearly 200,000 Pirated Books for AI Training,” containing this passage: 

That quotation from EFF’s Corynne McSherry was cited again in two subsequent, related stories by the same journalist—one published July 27, the other August 27. 

But the link in that original June 26 post was fake. Corynne McSherry never wrote such an article, and the quote was bogus. 

Interestingly, we noted a similar issue with a June 13 post by the same journalist, in which he cited work by EFF Director of Cybersecurity Eva Galperin; this quote included the phrase “get-out-of-jail-free card” too. 

Again, the link he inserted leads nowhere because Eva Galperin never wrote such a blog or white paper.  

When EFF reached out, the journalist—WinBuzzer founder and editor-in-chief Markus Kasanmascheff—acknowledged via email that the quotes were bogus. 

“This indeed must be a case of AI slop. We are using AI tools for research/source analysis/citations. I sincerely apologize for that and this is not the content quality we are aiming for,” he wrote. “I myself have noticed that in the particular case of the EFF for whatever reason non-existing quotes are manufactured. This usually does not happen and I have taken the necessary measures to avoid this in the future. Every single citation and source mention must always be double checked. I have been doing this already but obviously not to the required level. 

“I am actually manually editing each article and using AI for some helping tasks. I must have relied too much on it,” he added. 

It’s not an isolated incident. Media companies large and small are using AI to generate news content because it’s cheaper than paying for journalists’ salaries, but that savings can come at the cost of the outlets’ reputations.  

The U.K.’s Press Gazette reported last month that Wired and Business Insider had to remove news features written by one freelance journalist after concerns the articles are likely AI-generated works of fiction: “Most of the published stories contained case studies of named people whose details Press Gazette was unable to verify online, casting doubt on whether any of the quotes or facts contained in the articles are real.” 

And back in May, the Chicago Sun-Times had to apologize after publishing an AI-generated list of books that would make good summer reads—with 10 of the 15 recommended book descriptions and titles found to be “false, or invented out of whole cloth.” 

As journalist Peter Sterne wrote for Nieman Lab in 2022: 

Another potential risk of relying on large language models to write news articles is the potential for the AI to insert fake quotes. Since the AI is not bound by the same ethical standards as a human journalist, it may include quotes from sources that do not actually exist, or even attribute fake quotes to real people. This could lead to false or misleading reporting, which could damage the credibility of the news organization. It will be important for journalists and newsrooms to carefully fact check any articles written with the help of AI, to ensure the accuracy and integrity of their reporting. 

(Or did he write that? Sterne disclosed in that article that he used OpenAI’s ChatGPT-3 to generate that paragraph, ironically enough.) 

The Radio Television Digital News Association issued guidelines a few years ago for the use of AI in journalism, and the Associated Press is among many outlets that have developed guidelines of their own. The Poynter Institute offers a template for developing such policies.  

Nonetheless, some journalists or media outlets have been caught using AI to generate stories including fake quotes; for example, the Associated Press reported last year that a Wyoming newspaper reporter had filed at least seven stories that included AI-generated quotations from six people.  

WinBuzzer wasn’t the only outlet to falsely quote EFF this year. An April 19 article in Wander contained another bogus quotation from Eva Galperin: 

An email to the outlet demanding the article’s retraction went unanswered. 

In another case, WebProNews published a July 24 article quoting Eva Galperin under the headline “Risika Data Breach Exposes 100M Swedish Records to Fraud Risks,” but Eva confirmed she’d never spoken with them or given that quotation to anyone. The article no longer seems to exist on the outlet’s own website, but it was captured by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. 

A request for comment made through WebProNews’ “Contact Us” page went unanswered, and then they did it again on September 2, this time misattributing a statement to Corynne McSherry: 

The top prize for audacious falsity goes to a June 18 article in the Arabian Post, since removed from the site after we flagged it to an editor. The Arabian Post is part of the Hyphen Digital Network, which describes itself as “at the forefront of AI innovation” and offering “software solutions that streamline workflows to focus on what matters most: insightful storytelling.” The article in question included this passage: 

Privacy advocate Linh Nguyen from the Electronic Frontier Foundation remarked that community monitoring tools are playing a civic role, though she warned of the potential for misinformation. “Crowdsourced neighbourhood policing walks a thin line—useful in forcing transparency, but also vulnerable to misidentification and fear-mongering,” she noted in a discussion on digital civil rights. 

Nobody at EFF recalls anyone named Linh Nguyen ever having worked here, nor have we been able to find anyone by that name who works in the digital privacy sector. So not only was the quotation fake, but apparently the purported source was, too.  

Now, EFF is all about having our words spread far and wide. Per our copyright policy, any and all original material on the EFF website may be freely distributed at will under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY), unless otherwise noted. 

But we don't want AI and/or disreputable media outlets making up words for us. False quotations that misstate our positions damage the trust that the public and more reputable media outlets have in us. 

If you're worried about this (and rightfully so), the best thing a news consumer can do is invest a little time and energy to learn how to discern the real from the fake. It’s unfortunate that it's the public’s burden to put in this much effort, but while we're adjusting to new tools and a new normal, a little effort now can go a long way.  

As we’ve noted before in the context of election misinformation, the nonprofit journalism organization ProPublica has published a handy guide about how to tell if what you’re reading is accurate or “fake news.” And the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions infographic on How to Spot Fake News is a quick and easy-to-read reference you can share with friends: 

This is the seventh installment in a blog series documenting EFF's findings from the Stop Censoring Abortion campaign. You can read additional posts here. 

For users hoping to promote or boost an abortion-related post on Meta platforms, the Community Standards are just step one. While the Community Standards apply to all posts, paid posts and advertisements must also comply with Meta's Advertising Standards. It’s easy to understand why Meta places extra requirements on paid content. In fact, their “advertising policy principles” outline several important and laudable goals, including promoting transparency and protecting users from scams, fraud, and unsafe and discriminatory practices. 

But additional standards bring additional content moderation, and with that comes increased potential for user confusion and moderation errors. Meta’s ad policies, like its enforcement policies, are vague on a number of important questions. Because of this, it’s no surprise that Meta's ad policies repeatedly came up as we reviewed our Stop Censoring Abortion submissions. 

There are two important things to understand about these ad policies. First, the ad policies do indeed impose stricter rules on content about abortion—and specifically medication abortion—than Meta’s Community Standards do. To help users better understand what is and isn’t allowed, we took a closer look at the policies and what Meta has said about them. 

Second, despite these requirements, the ad policies do not categorically block abortion-related posts from being promoted as ads. In other words, while Meta’s ad policies introduce extra hurdles, they should not, in theory, be a complete barrier to promoting abortion-related posts as boosted content. Still, our analysis revealed that Meta is falling short in several areas. 

When EFF asked Meta about potential ad policy violations, the company first pointed to its Drugs and Pharmaceuticals policy. In the abortion care context, this policy applies to paid content specifically about medication abortion and use of abortion pills. Ads promoting these and other prescription drugs are permitted, but there are additional requirements: 

Understanding what counts as “promoting prescription drugs” is where things get murky. Crucially, the written policy states that advertisers do not need authorization to run ads that “educate, advocate or give public service announcements related to prescription drugs” or that “promote telehealth services generally.” This should, in theory, leave a critical opening for abortion advocates focused on education and advocacy rather than direct prescription drug sales. 

But Meta told EFF that advertisers “must obtain authorization to post ads discussing medical efficacy, legality, accessibility, affordability, and scientific merits and restrict these ads to adults aged 18 or older.” Yet many of these topics—medical efficacy, legality, accessibility—are precisely what educational content and advocacy often address. Where’s the line? This vagueness makes it difficult for abortion pill advocates to understand what’s actually permitted. 

Meta also told EFF that its Ads about Social Issues, Elections or Politics policy may apply to a range of abortion-related content. Under this policy, advertisers within certain countries—including the U.S.—must meet several requirements before running ads about certain “social issues.” Requirements include: 

While certain news publishers are exempt from the policy, it otherwise applies to a wide range of accounts, including activists, brands, non-profit groups and political organizations. 

Meta defines “social issues” as “sensitive topics that are heavily debated, may influence the outcome of an election or result in/relate to existing or proposed legislation.” What falls under this definition differs by country, and Meta provides country-specific topics lists and examples. In the U.S. and several other countries, ads that include “discussion, debate, or advocacy for or against...abortion services and pro-choice/pro-life advocacy” qualify as social issues ads under the “Civil and Social Rights” category.

Confusingly, Meta differentiates this from ads that primarily sell a product or promote a service, which do not require authorization or disclaimers, even if the ad secondarily includes advocacy for an issue. For instance, according to Meta's examples, an ad that says, “How can we address systemic racism?” counts as a social issues ad and requires authorization and disclaimers. On the other hand, an ad that says, “We have over 100 newly-published books about systemic racism and Black History now on sale” primarily promotes a product, and would not require authorization and disclaimers. But even with Meta's examples, the line is still blurry. This vagueness invites confusion and content moderation errors.

Oddly, Meta never specifically identified its Health and Wellness ad policy to EFF, though the policy is directly relevant to abortion-related paid content. This policy addresses ads about reproductive health and family planning services, and requires ads regarding “abortion medical consultation and related services” to be targeted at users 18 and older. It also expressly states that for paid content involving “[r]eproductive health and wellness drugs or treatments that require prescription,” accounts must comply with both this policy and the Drugs and Pharmaceuticals policy. 

This means abortion advocates must navigate the Drugs and Pharmaceuticals policy, the Social Issues policy, and the Health and Wellness policy—each with its own requirements and authorization processes. That Meta didn’t mention this highly relevant policy when asked about abortion advertising underscores how confusingly dispersed these rules are. 

Like the Drugs policy, the Health and Wellness policy contains an important education exception for abortion advocates: The age-targeting requirements do not apply to “[e]ducational material or information about family planning services without any direct promotion or facilitation of the services.”  

Meta's complex policies create fertile ground for automated moderation errors. Our Stop Censoring Abortion survey submissions revealed that Meta's systems repeatedly misidentified educational abortion content as Community Standards violations. The same over-moderation problems are also a risk in the advertising context.  

On top of that, content moderation errors even on unpaid posts can trigger advertising restrictions and penalties. Meta's advertising restrictions policy states that Community Standards violations can result in restricted advertising features or complete advertising bans. This creates a compounding problem when educational content about abortion is wrongly flagged. Abortion advocates could face a double penalty: first their content is removed, then their ability to advertise is restricted. 

This may be, in part, what happened to Red River Women's Clinic, a Minnesota abortion clinic we wrote about earlier in this series. When its account was incorrectly suspended for violating the “Community Standards on drugs,” the clinic appealed and eventually reached out to a contact at Meta. When Meta finally removed the incorrect flag and restored the account, Red River received a message informing them they were no longer out of compliance with the advertising restrictions policy. 

Screenshot submitted by Red River Women's Clinic to EFF

Our review of the ad policies and survey submissions showed that there is room for improvement in how Meta handles abortion-related advertising. 

First, Meta should clarify what is permitted without prior authorization under the Drugs and Pharmaceuticals policy. As noted above, the policies say advertisers do not need authorization to “educate, advocate or give public service announcements,” but Meta told EFF authorization is needed to promote posts discussing “medical efficacy, legality, accessibility, affordability, and scientific merits.” Users should be able to more easily determine what content falls on each side of that line.  

Second, Meta should clarify when its Social Issues policy applies. Does discussing abortion at all trigger its application? Meta says the policy excludes posts primarily advertising a service, yet this is not what survey respondent Lynsey Bourke experienced. She runs the Instagram account Rouge Doulas, a global abortion support collective and doula training school. Rouge Doulas had a paid post removed under this very policy for advertising something that is clearly a service: its doula training program called “Rouge Abortion Doula School.” The policy’s current ambiguity makes it difficult for advocates to create compliant content with confidence.

Third, and as EFF has previously argued, Meta should ensure its automated system is not over-moderating. Meta must also provide a meaningful appeals process for when errors inevitably occur. Automated systems are blunt tools and are bound to make mistakes on complex topics like abortion. But simply using an image of a pill on an educational post shouldn’t automatically trigger takedowns. Improving automated moderation will help correct the cascading effect of incorrect Community Standards flags triggering advertising restrictions. 

With clearer policies, better moderation, and a commitment to transparency, Meta can make it easier for accounts to share and boost vital reproductive health information. 

This is the seventh post in our blog series documenting the findings from our Stop Censoring Abortion campaign. Read more at https://www.eff.org/pages/stop-censoring-abortion   

Affected by unjust censorship? Share your story using the hashtag #StopCensoringAbortion. Amplify censored posts and accounts, share screenshots of removals and platform messages—together, we can demonstrate how these policies harm real people.