Meta implemented a content moderation system in 2023 that exempted high-spending advertisers from automated reviews, instead routing their content to human moderators to prevent enforcement mistakes. Internal documents obtained by Financial Times revealed that this approach aimed to protect key revenue streams by prioritizing brands spending significant amounts on advertising. Businesses spending over $1,200 in a 56-day period, individual users spending more than $960 in the same timeframe, or advertisers spending $1,500 daily received these exemptions. Smaller advertisers who did not meet these thresholds remained subject to automated moderation, exposing them to sudden restrictions that could disrupt campaigns.
Meta’s internal assessments rated these spend-based protections as having “low defensibility,” signaling concerns over how the public might perceive preferential treatment for top advertisers. While the company justified 73% of enforcement actions against major advertisers as valid, the two-tiered system has drawn criticism for creating an uneven playing field. Meta reported nearly $135 billion in revenue in 2023, with major advertisers contributing a substantial share. Critics argue that this moderation policy prioritizes profits over fairness, leaving smaller advertisers at a disadvantage.
A Meta spokesperson dismissed the Financial Times report as “simply inaccurate” and claimed it was based on “cherry-picked” documents, asserting that the system was designed to prevent enforcement errors. The revelations come as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a shift in moderation strategy, including an end to third-party fact-checking and reduced reliance on automated systems. These changes coincide with the potential return of former President Donald Trump to the platform, adding further scrutiny to Meta’s policies.
The disclosures highlight the ongoing tension between protecting revenue streams from high-spending advertisers and maintaining consistent enforcement standards across the platform. Smaller advertisers may view these practices as favoring wealthier businesses, reinforcing concerns about inequities in Meta’s advertising ecosystem.
Image: DIW-Aigen
Read next: MetaAI Researchers Have Suggested Scalable Memory Layers for LLMs for Improved Memory
Meta’s internal assessments rated these spend-based protections as having “low defensibility,” signaling concerns over how the public might perceive preferential treatment for top advertisers. While the company justified 73% of enforcement actions against major advertisers as valid, the two-tiered system has drawn criticism for creating an uneven playing field. Meta reported nearly $135 billion in revenue in 2023, with major advertisers contributing a substantial share. Critics argue that this moderation policy prioritizes profits over fairness, leaving smaller advertisers at a disadvantage.
A Meta spokesperson dismissed the Financial Times report as “simply inaccurate” and claimed it was based on “cherry-picked” documents, asserting that the system was designed to prevent enforcement errors. The revelations come as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a shift in moderation strategy, including an end to third-party fact-checking and reduced reliance on automated systems. These changes coincide with the potential return of former President Donald Trump to the platform, adding further scrutiny to Meta’s policies.
The disclosures highlight the ongoing tension between protecting revenue streams from high-spending advertisers and maintaining consistent enforcement standards across the platform. Smaller advertisers may view these practices as favoring wealthier businesses, reinforcing concerns about inequities in Meta’s advertising ecosystem.
Read next: MetaAI Researchers Have Suggested Scalable Memory Layers for LLMs for Improved Memory
