Deeplinks

One of the reasons we opposed the TikTok "ban" is that the First Amendment is supposed to protect us from government using its power to manipulate speech. But as predicted, the TikTok "ban" has only resulted in turning over the platform to the allies of a president who seems to have no respect for the First Amendment.

TikTok was never proven to be a current national security problem, so it's hard to say the sale will alleviate those unproven concerns. And it remains to be seen if the deal places any limits on the new ownership sharing user data with foreign governments or anyone else—the security concern that purportedly justified the forced sale. As for the algorithm, if the concern had been that TikTok could be a conduit for Chinese government propaganda—a concern the Supreme Court declined to even consider—people can now be concerned that TikTok could be a conduit for U.S. government propaganda. An administration official reportedly has said the new TikTok algorithm will be "retrained" with U.S. data to make sure the system is "behaving properly."

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

One of the goals of our Stop Censoring Abortion campaign was to put names, stories, and numbers to the experiences we’d been hearing about: people and organizations having their abortion-related content – or entire accounts – removed or suppressed on social media. In reviewing survey submissions, we found that multiple users reported experiencing shadowbanning. Shadowbanning (or “deranking”) is widely experienced and reported by content creators across various social media platforms, and it’s a phenomenon that those who create content about abortion and sexual and reproductive health know all too well.

Shadowbanning is the often silent suppression of certain types of content or creators in your social media feeds. It’s not something that a U.S-based creator is notified about, but rather something they simply find out when their posts stop getting the same level of engagement that they’re used to, or when people are unable to easily find their account using the platform’s search function. Essentially, it is when a platform or its algorithm decides that other users should see less of a creator or specific topic. Many platforms deny that shadowbanning exists; they will often blame reduced reach of posts on ‘bugs’ in the algorithm. At the same time, companies like Meta have admitted that content is ranked, but much about how this ranking system works remains unknown.  Meta says that there are five content categories that while allowed on its platforms, “may not be eligible for recommendation.” Content discussing abortion pills may fall under the umbrella of “Content that promotes the use of certain regulated products,” but posts that simply affirm abortion as a valid reproductive decision or are of storytellers sharing their experiences don’t match any of the criteria that would make it unable to be recommended by Meta.

Whether a creator relies on a platform for income or uses it to educate the public, shadowbanning can be devastating for the growth of an account. And this practice often seems to disproportionately affect people who are talking about ‘taboo’ topics like sex, abortion, and LGBTQ+ identities, such as Kim Adamski, a sexual health educator who shared her story with our Stop Censoring Abortion project. As you can see in the images below, Kim’s Instagram account does not show up as a suggestion when being searched, and can only be found after typing in the full username.

Earlier this year, the Center for Intimacy Justice shared their report, "The Digital Gag: Suppression of Sexual and Reproductive Health on Meta, TikTok, Amazon, and Google", which found that of the 159 nonprofits, content creators, sex educators, and businesses surveyed, 63% had content removed on Meta platforms and 55% had content removed on TikTok. This suppression is happening at the same time as platforms continue to allow and elevate videos of violence and gore and extremist hateful content. This pattern is troubling and is only becoming more prevalent as people turn to social media to find the information they need to make decisions about their health.

Reproductive rights and sex education have been under attack across the U.S. for decades. Since the Dobbs v. Jackson decision in 2022, 20 states have banned or limited access to abortion. Meanwhile, 16 states don’t require sex education in public schools to be medically accurate, 19 states have laws that stigmatize LGBTQ+ identities in their sex education curricula, and 17 states specifically stigmatize abortion in their sex education curricula.

In a world that is constantly finding ways to legislate away bodily autonomy and hide queer identities, social media platforms have an opportunity to stand as safe havens for access to community and knowledge.

Online platforms are critical lifelines for people seeking possibly life-saving information about their sexual and reproductive health. We know that when people are unable to find or access the information they need within their communities, they will turn to the internet and social media. This is especially important for abortion-seekers and trans youth living in states where healthcare is being criminalized.

In a world that is constantly finding ways to legislate away bodily autonomy and hide queer identities, social media platforms have an opportunity to stand as safe havens for access to community and knowledge. Limiting access to this information by suppressing the people and organizations who are providing it is an attack on free expression and a profound threat to freedom of information—principles that these platforms claim to uphold. Now more than ever, we must continue to push back against censorship of sexual and reproductive health information so that the internet can still be a place where all voices are heard and where all can learn.

This is the fourth 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

Police are using their drones as flying automated license plate readers (ALPRs), airborne police cameras that make it easier than ever for law enforcement to follow you. 

"The Flock Safety drone, specifically, are flying LPR cameras as well,” Rahul Sidhu, Vice President of Aviation at Flock Safety, recently told a group of potential law enforcement customers interested in drone-as-first-responder (DFR) programs. 

The integration of Flock Safety’s flagship ALPR technology with its Aerodome drone equipment is a police surveillance combo poised to elevate the privacy threats to civilians caused by both of these invasive technologies as drone adoption expands. 

A slide from a Flock Safety presentation to Rutherford County Sheriff's Office in North Carolina, obtained via public records, featuring Flock Safety products, including the Aerodome drone and the Wing product, which helps convert surveillance cameras into ALPR systems

The use of DFR programs has grown exponentially. The biggest police technology companies, like Axon, Flock Safety, and Motorola Solutions, are broadening their drone offerings, anticipating that drones could become an important piece of their revenue stream. 

Communities must demand restrictions on how local police use drones and ALPRs, let alone a dangerous hybrid of the two. Otherwise, we can soon expect that a drone will fly to any call for service and capture sensitive location information about every car in its flight path, capturing more ALPR data to add to the already too large databases of our movements. 

ALPR systems typically rely on cameras that have been fixed along roadways or attached to police vehicles. These cameras capture the image of a vehicle, then use artificial intelligence technology to log the license plate, make, model, color, and other unique identifying information, like dents and bumper stickers. This information is usually stored on the manufacturer’s servers and often made available on nationwide sharing networks to police departments from other states and federal agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ALPRs are already used by most of the largest police departments in the country, and Flock Safety also now offers the ability for an agency to turn almost any internet-enabled cameras into an ALPR camera. 

ALPRs present a host of problems. ALPR systems vacuum up data—like the make, model, color, and location of vehicles—on people who will never be involved in a crime, used in gridding areas to systematically make a record of when and where vehicles have been. ALPRs routinely make mistakes, causing police to stop the wrong car and terrorize the driver. Officers have abused law enforcement databases in hundreds of cases. Police have used them to track across state lines people seeking legal health procedures. Even when there are laws against sharing data from these tools with other departments, some policing agencies still do.

Drones, meanwhile, give police a view of roofs, backyards, and other fenced areas where cops can’t casually patrol, and their adoption is becoming more common. Companies that sell drones have been helping law enforcement agencies to get certifications from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), and recently-implemented changes to the restrictions on flying drones beyond the visual line of sight will make it even easier for police to add this equipment. According to the FAA, since a new DFR waiver process was implemented in May 2025, the FAA has granted more than 410 such waivers, already accounting for almost a third of the approximately 1,400 DFR waivers that have been granted since such programs began in 2018.

Local officials should, of course, be informed that the drones they’re buying are equipped to do such granular surveillance from the sky, but it is not clear that this is happening. While the ALPR feature is available as part of Flock drone acquisitions, some government customers may not realize that to approve a drone from Flock Safety may also mean approving a flying ALPR. And though not every Flock safety drone is currently running the ALPR feature, some departments, like Redondo Beach Police Department, have plans to activate it in the near future. 

ALPRs aren’t the only so-called payloads that can be added to a drone. In addition to the high resolution and thermal cameras with which drones can already be equipped, drone manufacturers and police departments have discussed adding cell-site simulators, weapons, microphones, and other equipment. Communities must mobilize now to keep this runaway surveillance technology under tight control.

When EFF posed questions to Flock Safety about the integration of ALPR and its drones, the company declined to comment.

Mapping, storing, and tracking as much personal information as possible—all without warrants—is where automated police surveillance is heading right now. Flock has previously described its desire to connect ALPR scans to additional information on the person who owns the car, meaning that we don’t live far from a time when police may see your vehicle drive by and quickly learn that it’s your car and a host of other details about you. 

EFF has compiled a list of known drone-using police departments. Find out about your town’s surveillance tools at the Atlas of Surveillance. Know something we don't? Reach out at [email protected].

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

Imagine sharing information about reproductive health care on social media and receiving a message that your content has been removed for violating a policy intended to curb online extremism. That’s exactly what happened to one person using Instagram who shared her story with our Stop Censoring Abortion project.

Meta’s rules for “Dangerous Organizations and Individuals” (DOI) were supposed to be narrow: a way to prevent the platform from being used by terrorist groups, organized crime, and those engaged in violent or criminal activity. But over the years, we’ve seen these rules applied in far broader—and more troubling—ways, with little transparency and significant impact on marginalized voices.

EFF has long warned that the DOI policy is opaque, inconsistently enforced, and prone to overreach. The policy has been critiqued by others for its opacity and propensity to disproportionately censor marginalized groups.

Samantha Shoemaker's post about Plan C was flagged under Meta's policy on dangerous organizations and individuals

Meta has since added examples and clarifications in its Transparency Center to this and other policies, but their implementation still leaves users in the dark about what’s allowed and what isn’t.

The case we received illustrates just how harmful this lack of clarity can be. Samantha Shoemaker, an individual sharing information about abortion care, shared straightforward, facts about accessing abortion pills. Her posts included:

Instead of allowing her to facilitate informed discussion, Instagram flagged some of her posts under its “Prescription Drugs” policy, while others were removed under the DOI policy—the same set of rules meant to stop violent extremism from being shared.

We recognize that moderation systems—both human and automated—will make mistakes. But when Meta equates medically accurate, harm-reducing information about abortion with “dangerous organizations,” it underscores a deeper problem: the blunt tools of content moderation disproportionately silence speech that is lawful, important, and often life-saving.

At a time when access to abortion information is already under political attack in the United States and around the world, platforms must be especially careful not to compound the harm. This incident shows how overly broad rules and opaque enforcement can erase valuable speech and disempower users who most need access to knowledge.

And when content does violate the rules, it’s important that users are provided with accurate information as to why. An individual sharing information about health care will undoubtedly be confused or upset by being told that they have violated a policy meant to curb violent extremism. Moderating content responsibly means offering the greatest transparency and clarity to users as possible. As outlined in the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation, users should be able to readily understand:

If you find your content removed under Meta’s policies, you do have options:

Abortion is health care. Sharing information about it is not dangerous—it’s necessary. Meta should allow users to share vital information about reproductive care. The company must also ensure that users are provided with clear information about how their policies are being applied and how to appeal seemingly wrongful decisions.

This is the third 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   

It's been a year full of challenges, but also important victories for digital freedoms. From EFF’s new lawsuit against OPM and DOGE, to launching Rayhunter (our new tool to detect cellular spying), to exposing the censorship of abortion-related content on social media, we’ve been busy! But we’re not the only ones leading the charge. 

On September 10 in San Francisco, we presented the annual EFF Awards to three courageous honorees who are pushing back against unlawful surveillance, championing data privacy, and advancing civil liberties online. This year’s awards went to Just Futures Law, Erie Meyer, and the Software Freedom Law Center, India. 

If you missed the celebration in person, you can still watch it live! The full event is posted on YouTube and the Internet Archive, and a transcript of the live captions is also available.  

WATCH NOW

SEE THE EFF AWARDS CEREMONY ON YOUTUBE

EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn opened the evening by reflecting on our victories this past year and reiterated how vital EFF’s mission to protect privacy and free speech is today. She also announced her upcoming departure as Executive Director after a decade in the role (and over 25 years of involvement with EFF!). No need to be too sentimental—Cindy isn’t going far. As we like to say: you can check out at any time, but you never really leave the fight. 

Cindy then welcomed one of EFF’s founders, Mitch Kapor, who joked that he had been “brought out of cold storage” for the occasion. Mitch recalled EFF’s early days, when no one knew exactly how constitutional rights would interact with emerging technologies—but everyone understood the stakes. “We understood that the matter of digital rights were very important,” he reflected. And history has proven them right. 

The first award of the night, the EFF Award for Defending Digital Freedoms, went to the Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.IN). Presenting the award, EFF Civil Liberties Director David Greene emphasized the importance of international partners like SFLC.IN, whose local perspectives enrich and strengthen EFF’s own work. 

SFLC.IN is at the forefront of digital rights in India—challenging internet shutdowns, tracking violations of free expression with their Free Speech Tracker, and training lawyers across the country. Accepting the award, SFLC.IN founder Mishi Choudhary reminded us: “These freedoms are not abstract. They are fought for every day by people, by organizations, and by movements.” 

SFLC.IN founder Mishi Choudhary accepts the EFF Award for Defending Digital Freedoms

Next, EFF Staff Attorney Mario Trujillo introduced the winner of the EFF Award for Protecting Americans’ Data, Erie Meyer. Erie has served as CTO of the Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and was a founding member of the U.S. Digital Service. Today, she continues to fight for better government technology and safeguards for sensitive data. 

In her remarks, Erie underscored the urgency of protecting personal data at scale: “We need to protect people’s data the same way we protect this country from national security risks. What’s happening right now is like all the data breaches in history rolled into one. ‘Trust me, bro’ is not a way to handle 550 million Americans’ data.” 

Erie Meyer accepts the EFF Award for Protecting Americans’ Data

Finally, EFF General Counsel Jennifer Lynch introduced the EFF Award for Leading Immigration and Surveillance Litigation, presented to Just Futures Law. Co-founder and Executive Director Paromita Shah accepted on behalf of the organization, which works to challenge the ways surveillance disproportionately harms people of color in the U.S. 

“For years, corporations and law enforcement—including ICE—have been testing the legal limits of their tools on communities of color,” Paromita said in her speech. Just Futures Law has fought back, suing the Department of Homeland Security to reveal its use of AI, and defending activists against surveillance technologies like Clearview AI. 

Just Futures Law Executive Director Paromita Shah accepted the EFF Award for Leading Immigration and Surveillance Litigation

We’re honored to shine a spotlight on these award winners, who are doing truly fearless and essential work to protect online privacy and free expression. Their courage reminds us that the fight for civil liberties will be won when we work together—across borders, communities, and movements. 

Join the fight and donate today

A heartfelt thank you to all of the EFF members worldwide who make this work possible. Public support is what allows us to push for a better internet. If you’d like to join the fight, consider becoming an EFF member—you’ll receive special gear as our thanks, and you’ll help power the digital freedom movement. 

And finally, special thanks to the sponsor of this year’s EFF Awards: Electric Capital.

Reminder that if you missed the event, you can watch the live recording on our YouTube and the Internet Archive. Plus, a special thank you to our photographers, Alex Schoenfeldt and Carolina Kroon. You can see some of our favorite group photos that were taken during the event, and photos of the awardees with their trophies. 

The San Francisco Police Department is the latest California law enforcement agency to get caught sharing automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with out-of-state and federal agencies. EFF and the ACLU of Northern California are calling them out for this direct violation of California law, which has put every driver in the city at risk and is especially dangerous for immigrants, abortion seekers, and other targets of the federal government.

This week, we sent the San Francisco Police Department a demand letter and request for records under the city’s Sunshine Ordinance following the SF Standard’s recent report that SFPD provided non-California agencies direct access to the city’s ALPR database. Reporters uncovered that at least 19 searches run by these agencies were marked as related to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). The city’s ALPR database was also searched by law enforcement agencies from Georgia and Texas, both states with severe restrictions on reproductive healthcare.

ALPRs are cameras that capture the movements of vehicles and upload the location of the vehicles to a searchable, shareable database. It is a mass surveillance technology that collects data indiscriminately on every vehicle on the road. As of September 2025, SFPD operates 415 ALPR cameras purchased from the company Flock Safety.

Since 2016, sharing ALPR data with out-of-state or federal agencies—for any reason—violates California law (SB 34). If this data is shared for the purpose of assisting with immigration enforcement, agencies violate an additional California law (SB 54).

In total, the SF Standard found that SFPD had allowed out-of-state cops to run 1.6 million searches of their data. “This sharing violated state law, as well as exposed sensitive driver location information to misuse by the federal government and by states that lack California’s robust privacy protections,” the letter explained.

EFF and ACLU are urging SFPD to launch a thorough audit of its ALPR database, institute new protocols for compliance, and assess penalties and sanctions for any employee found to be sharing ALPR information out of state.

“Your office reportedly claims that agencies outside of California are no longer able to access the SFPD ALPR database,” the letter says. “However, your office has not explained how outside agencies obtained access in the first place or how you plan to prevent future violations of SB 34 and 54.”

As we’ve demonstrated over and over again, many California agencies continue to ignore these laws, exposing sensitive location information to misuse and putting entire communities at risk. As federal agencies continue to carry out violent ICE raids, and many states enforce harsh, draconian restrictions on abortion, ALPR technology is already being used to target and surveil immigrants and abortion seekers. California agencies, including SFPD, have an obligation to protect the rights of Californians, even when those rights are not recognized by other states or the federal government.

See the full letter here: https://www.eff.org/files/2025/09/17/aclu_and_eff_letter_to_sfpd_9.16.2025-1.pdf

This posted was drafted by EFF legal intern Alexandra Halbeck

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers California and most of the Western U.S., just delivered good news for digital privacy: abandoning a phone doesn’t abandon your Fourth Amendment rights in the phone’s contents. In United States v. Hunt, the court made clear that no longer having control of a device is not the same thing as surrendering the privacy of the information it contains. As a result, courts must separately analyze whether someone intended to abandon a physical phone and whether they intended to abandon the data stored within it. Given how much personal information our phones contain, it will be unlikely for courts to find that someone truly intended to give up their privacy rights in that data.

This approach mirrors what EFF urged in the amicus brief we filed in Hunt, joined by the ACLU, ACLU of Oregon, EPIC, and NACDL. We argued that a person may be separated from—or even discard—a device, yet still retain a robust privacy interest in the information it holds. Treating phones like wallets or backpacks ignores the reality of technology. Smartphones are comprehensive archives of our lives, containing years of messages, photos, location history, health data, browsing habits, and countless other intimate details. As the Supreme Court recognized in Riley v. California, our phones hold “the privacies of life,” and accessing those digital contents generally requires a warrant. This is an issue EFF has worked on across the country, and it is gratifying to see such an unambiguous ruling from an influential appellate court.

The facts of Hunt underscore why the court’s distinction between a device and its contents matters. In 2017, Dontae Hunt was shot multiple times and dropped an iPhone while fleeing for medical help. Police collected the phone from the crime scene and kept it as evidence. Nearly three years later—during an unrelated drug investigation—federal agents obtained a warrant and searched the phone’s contents. Hunt challenged both the warrantless seizure and the later search, arguing he never intended to abandon either the device or its data.

The court rejected the government’s sweeping abandonment theory and drew a crucial line for the digital age: even if police have legal possession of hardware, they do not have green light to rummage through its contents. The panel emphasized that courts must treat the device and the data as separate questions under a Fourth Amendment analysis.

In this specific case, because the government ultimately obtained a warrant before searching the device, that aspect of the case survived constitutional scrutiny—but crucially, only on that basis. The court also found that police acted reasonably in initially seizing the phone during the shooting investigation and keeping it as unclaimed property until a warrant could be obtained to search it.

Under Hunt, if officers find a phone that’s been misplaced, dropped during an emergency, or otherwise separated from its owner, they cannot leap from custody of the glass-and-metal shell to unfettered access to the comprehensive digital record inside. This decision ensures that constitutional protections don’t evaporate just because someone abandons their device, and that warrants still matter in the digital age. Our constitutional rights should follow our digital lives—no matter where our devices may end up.

It's easy to keep up with the fight for digital privacy and free expression. Our EFFector newsletter delivers bite-sized updates, stories, and actions you can take to stay informed and help out.

In this latest issue, we show how libraries and schools can safeguard their computers with Privacy Badger; highlight the dangers of unaccountable corporations and billionaires buying surveillance tech for police; and share news that EFF’s Executive Director, Cindy Cohn, will be stepping down in mid-2026 after more than two decades of leadership.

EFFector isn’t just for reading—you can listen, too! In our audio companion, EFF Senior Staff Technologist Cooper Quintin explains why ICE’s contract with Paragon Solutions is so dangerous. Catch the conversation on YouTube or the Internet Archive.

LISTEN TO EFFECTOR

EFFECTOR 37.12 - ICE 🤝 Cyber Mercenaries

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.

This is the second instalment in a ten-part blog series documenting EFF's findings from the Stop Censoring Abortion campaign. You can read additional posts here. 

During our Stop Censoring Abortion campaign, we set out to collect and spotlight the growing number of stories from people and organizations that have had abortion-related content removed, suppressed, or flagged by dominant social media platforms. Our survey submissions have revealed some alarming trends, including: if you don’t have a personal or second-degree connection at Meta, your chances of restoring your content or account are likely to drop significantly. 

Through the survey, we heard from activists, clinics, and researchers whose accounts were suspended or permanently removed for allegedly violating Meta’s policies on promoting or selling “restricted goods,” even when their posts were purely educational or informational. What the submissions also showed is a pattern of overenforcement, lack of transparency, and arbitrary moderation decisions that have specifically affected reproductive health and reproductive justice advocates. 

When accounts are taken down, appeals can take days, weeks, or even months (if they're even resolved at all, or if users are even given the option to appeal). For organizations and providers, this means losing access to vital communication tools and being cut off from the communities they serve. This is highly damaging since so much of that interaction happens on Meta’s platforms. Yet we saw a disturbing pattern emerge in our survey: on several occasions, accounts are swiftly restored once someone with a connection to Meta intervenes.

The Red River Women's Clinic is an abortion clinic in Moorhead, MN. It was originally located in Fargo, North Dakota, and for many years was the only abortion clinic in North Dakota. In early January, the clinic’s director heard from a patient that she thought they only offered procedural/surgical abortions and not medication abortion. To clarify for other patients, they posted on the clinic’s page that they offered both procedural and medication abortions—attaching an image of a box of mifepristone. When they tried to boost the post, the ad was flagged and their account was suspended.

They appealed the decision and initially got the ad approved, yet the page was suspended again shortly after. But this time, multiple appeals and direct emails went unanswered, until they reached out to a digital rights organization that was able to connect with staff at Meta that stepped in. Only then was their page restored, with Meta noting that their post did not violate the policies but warning that future violations could lead to permanent removal.

While this may have been a glitch in Meta’s systems or a misapplication of policy, the suspension of the clinic’s Facebook account was detrimental for them. “We were unable to update our followers about dates/times we were closed, we were unable to share important information and news about abortion that would have kept our followers up to date, there was a legislative session happening and we were unable to share events and timely asks for reaching out to legislators about issues,” shared Tammi Kromenaker, Director of Red River Women's Clinic. The clinic was also prevented from starting an Instagram page due to the suspension. “Facebook has a certain audience and Instagram has another audience,” said Kromenaker, “we are trying to cater to all of our supporters so the loss of FB and the inability to access and start an Instagram account were really troubling to us.” 

RISE, a reproductive health research center at Emory University, launched an Instagram account to share community-centered research and combat misinformation related to reproductive health. In January of this year, they posted educational content about mifepristone on their instagram. “Let's talk about Mifepristone + its uses + the importance of access”, read the post. Two months later, their account was suddenly suspended, flagging the account under its policy against selling illegal drugs. Their appeal was denied, which led to the account being permanently deleted. 

Screenshot submitted by RISE to EFF

“As a team, this was a hit to our morale” shared Sara Redd, Director of Research Translation at RISE. “We pour countless hours of person-power, creativity, and passion into creating the content we have on our page, and having it vanish virtually overnight took a toll on our team.” For many organizational users like RISE, their social media accounts are a repository for resources and metrics that may not be stored elsewhere. “We spent a significant amount of already-constrained team capacity attempting to recover all of the content we’d created for Instagram that was potentially going to be permanently lost. [...] We also spent a significant amount of time and energy trying to understand what options we might have available from Meta to appeal our case and/or recover our account; their support options are not easily accessible, and the time it took to navigate this issue distracted from our existing work.”  

Meta restored the account only after RISE was able to connect with someone there. Once RISE logged back in, they confirmed that the flagged post was the one about mifepristone. The post never sold or directed people where to buy pills, it simply provided accurate information about the use and efficacy of the drug. 

Meta spokespersons have admitted to instances of “overenforcement” in various press statements, noting that content is sometimes incorrectly removed or blurred even when it doesn’t actually violate policy. Meta has insisted to the public that they care about free speech, as a spokesperson mentioned to 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.” In fact, their platform policies directly mention this: 

Note that advertisers don’t need authorization to run ads that only:

Additionally: 

Note: Debating or advocating for the legality or discussing scientific or medical merits of prescription drugs is allowed. This includes news and public service announcements. 

Meta also has policies specific to “Health and Wellness,” where they state: 

When targeting people 18 years or older, advertisers can run ads that:

But these public commitments don’t always match users’ experiences. 

Take the widely covered case of Aid Access, a group that provides medication abortion by mail. This year, several of their Instagram posts were blurred and removed on Instagram, including one with tips for feeling safe and supported at home after taking abortion medication. But only after multiple national media outlets contacted Meta for comment on the story were the posts and account restored.

So the question becomes: If Meta admits its enforcement isn’t perfect, why does it still take knowing someone, or having the media involved, to get a fair review? When companies like Meta claim to uphold commitments to free speech, those commitments should materialize in clear policies that are enforced equally, not only when it is escalated through leveraging relationships with Meta personnel.

There is no question that the enforcement of these content moderation policies on Meta platforms and the length of time people are spending in “content jail” or “Facebook/Instagram jail” has created a chilling effect. 

“I think that I am more cautious and aware that the 6.1K followers we have built up over time could be taken away at any time based on the whims of Meta,” Tammi from Red River Women’s Clinic told us. 

RISE sees it in a slightly different light, sharing that “[w]hile this experience has not affected our fundamental values and commitment to sharing our work and rigorous science, it has highlighted for us that no information posted on a third-party platform is entirely one’s own, and thus can be dismantled at any moment.”

At the end of the day, clinics are left afraid to post basic information, patients are left confused or misinformed, and researchers lose access to their audiences. But unless your issue catches the attention of a journalist or you know someone at Meta, you might never regain access to your account.

These case studies highlight the urgent need for transparent, equitable, and timely enforcement that is not dependent on insider connections, as well as accountability from platforms that claim to support open dialogue and free speech. Meta’s admitted overenforcement should, at minimum, be coupled with efficient and well-staffed review processes and policies that are transparent and easily understandable. 

It’s time for Meta and other social media platforms to implement the reforms they claim to support, and for them to prove that protecting access to vital health information doesn’t hinge on who you know.

This is the second 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   

The Mexican government passed a package of outrageously privacy-invasive laws in July that gives both civil and military law enforcement forces access to troves of personal data and forces every individual to turn over biometric information regardless of any suspicion of crime.   

The laws create a new interconnected intelligence system dubbed the Central Intelligence Platform, under which intelligence and security agencies at all levels of government—federal, state and municipal—have the power to access, from any entity public or private, personal information for “intelligence purposes,” including license plate numbers, biometric information, telephone details that allow the identification of individuals, financial, banking, and health records, public and private property records, tax data, and more. 

You read that right. Banks’ customer information databases? Straight into the platform. Hospital patient records? Same thing. 

The laws were ostensively passed in the name of gathering intelligence to fight high-impact crime. Civil society organizations, including our partners RD3 and Article 19 Mexico, have raised alarms about the bills—as R3D put it, these new laws establish an uncontrolled system of surveillance and social control that goes against privacy and free expression rights and the presumption of innocence.  

In a concept note made public recently, RD3 breaks down exactly how bad the bills are. The General Population Act forces every person in Mexico to enroll in a mandatory biometric ID system with fingerprints and a photo. Under the law, public and private entities are required to ask for the ID for any transaction or access to services, such as banking, healthcare, education, and access to social programs. All data generated through the ID mandate will feed into a new Unique Identity Platform under the Disappeared Persons Act.  

The use of biometric IDs creates a system for tracking activities of the population—also accessible through the Central Intelligence Platform.  

The Telecommunications Act requires telecom companies to create a registry that connects people’s phone numbers with their biometric ID held by the government and cut services off to customers who won’t go along with the practice.  

It gets worse. 

The Intelligence Act explicitly guarantees the armed forces, through the National Guard, legal access to the Central Intelligence Platform, which enables real-time consultation of interconnected databases across sectors.  

Companies, both domestic and international, must either interconnect their databases or hand over information on request. Mexican authorities can share that information even with foreign governments. It also exempts judicial authorization requirements for certain types of surveillance and classifies the entire system as confidential, with criminal penalties for disclosure. All of this is allowed without any suspicion of a crime or prior judicial approval.  

We urge everyone to pay close attention to and support efforts to hold the Mexican government accountable for this egregious surveillance system. RD3 challenged the laws in court and international support is critical to raise awareness and push back.  As R3D put it, "collaboration is vital for the defense of human rights," especially in the face of uncontrolled powers set by disproportionate laws.  

We couldn’t agree more and stand with our Mexican allies.