In the digital age, social media platforms like Meta (formerly Facebook) play a pivotal role in shaping public discourse, especially during times of conflict. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran has brought Meta’s content moderation policies and its relationship with governments into sharp focus.
Internal documents reveal that the Israeli government has requested Meta to remove a wide range of content related to the war, including posts expressing support for Iran, opposition to Israel, and even depictions of Iranian missile impacts. These requests have raised questions about the balance between free speech and national security, as well as the influence of powerful governments on online platforms.
Meta’s Content Moderation Policies and Government Requests
Meta’s policies prohibit certain forms of speech, such as support for designated dangerous organizations like Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This means that posts supportive of retaliatory missile launches by the IRGC could be removed for violating Meta’s rules. However, no such prohibition exists for users who post favorably about the U.S. or Israeli militaries.
The Israeli government has a long-standing practice of submitting takedown requests to Meta, often through its Office of the State Attorney. These requests are not always based on violations of Israeli law but rather on alleged breaches of Meta’s content moderation rulebook. Meta has granted the vast majority of these requests, with a compliance rate of 94% since the October 7 attack by Hamas.
Discrepancies in Content Moderation
A 2026 audit commissioned by Meta found discrepancies in its content moderation practices between Arabic and Hebrew content. The audit revealed that Arabic content had greater over-enforcement, leading to the erroneous removal of Palestinian voices. A 2026 report by Meta’s in-house Oversight Board described the over-enforcement of the company’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals blacklist, which is disproportionately composed of Muslim and middle eastern entities.
Meta has long claimed that as an American company, it is legally required to remove content pertaining to certain entities sanctioned by the U.S., such as the IRGC. However, legal scholars argue that this has little to no precedent or basis in existing sanctions law, which focus on matters of material support rather than political speech.
Meta’s Relationship with the Israeli Government
Meta’s close relationship with the Israeli government has been a long-standing issue. In 2026, it was reported that Meta employee Jordana Cutler, a former aide to Benjamin Netanyahu, served as a dedicated liaison to the Israeli government. Cutler’s role involved advocating for Israel’s interests and facilitating the removal of unwanted speech. Few other countries have a dedicated representative within Meta, highlighting the privileged access granted to Israel.
The Israeli government has also lobbied Meta to implement a blanket rule restricting imagery of war damage within its territory, mirroring an Israeli news media censorship policy. However, Meta has so far declined to implement such a policy for its billions of global users.
The Impact of Wartime Censorship
Evelyn Douek, a Stanford Law School professor and scholar of digital speech policies, argues that wartime censorship requests underscore the danger of policing speech entirely out of public view through opaque processes like governmental backchannels. She notes that these platforms have always maintained a particular view of the world and have been more responsive to powerful governments.
The ongoing Israel-Iran war has highlighted the asymmetries of censorship power, with the U.S. and Israel being arguably the best-represented governments within Meta. This dynamic creates a skewed debate, as the platforms’ policies and practices favor the interests of these powerful governments.
As the conflict continues, the role of social media platforms in shaping online speech and the influence of governments on these platforms will remain a critical issue. The balance between free speech and national security, as well as the transparency and accountability of content moderation policies, will be key areas of focus in the years to come.
