In a rare and pointed move, Meta’s independent Oversight Board has issued a public rebuke of the tech giant, criticizing the company’s abrupt policy overhaul that it says undermines user rights and bypasses the platform’s own accountability standards.

The Oversight Board, often described as Meta’s “Supreme Court,” was established to provide independent review of content moderation decisions and policy guidance. This latest condemnation follows Meta’s quiet implementation of major policy shifts that significantly alter how certain content is moderated across Facebook and Instagram—without prior consultation with the Board or public transparency.

Unilateral Changes Spark Backlash

At the center of the controversy is Meta’s recent revision to its “dangerous organizations and individuals” policy, which critics say dilutes protections against hate speech and extremist content. The company reportedly made these changes unilaterally in March, without engaging its usual consultative processes, including input from the Oversight Board and civil society stakeholders.

According to the Board, Meta failed to provide a clear rationale or evidence to justify the timing or necessity of the changes. "This move undermines trust in the policy-making process and raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability,” the Board said in a statement released Tuesday.

The policy change appears to loosen restrictions on some forms of political expression and symbolic support for controversial figures—an area the company has previously struggled to manage in regions experiencing conflict or political unrest.

Oversight Board Demands Reinstated Safeguards

The Oversight Board has demanded that Meta immediately restore the previous version of the policy or, at a minimum, suspend the changes until a thorough review is conducted. It also called for a public explanation and a renewed commitment to transparent policy development.

"The Oversight Board was created to ensure that content moderation decisions are not just reactive, but principled and rights-respecting," said Catalina Botero-Marino, a co-chair of the Board. "Sidestepping that process undermines both the spirit and the function of this institution."

Meta’s Response: “Balancing Safety and Expression”

In response, Meta acknowledged the policy update but defended the decision as necessary to “better balance freedom of expression and user safety in evolving global contexts.” A spokesperson emphasized that the company remains committed to working with the Oversight Board but did not indicate whether it would roll back the policy changes.

“We continually reassess our policies to reflect shifting societal and political realities,” the spokesperson said. “We will review the Board’s recommendations and respond in due course.”

Growing Tensions and Questions of Influence

This incident underscores a growing tension between Meta’s internal decision-makers and the independent board it funds. While the Oversight Board has no legal authority to force policy changes, its public rebukes carry weight and can shape global discourse about platform governance.

Critics argue that Meta’s actions reveal deeper issues with self-regulation in the tech industry. “When a company funds its own watchdog, there’s always the risk of selective listening,” said Nora Benavidez, a digital rights advocate at Free Press. “This is a wake-up call for regulators to look harder at how companies handle accountability.”

What’s Next?

The Oversight Board has given Meta 30 days to respond to its recommendations. In the meantime, digital rights organizations and civil society groups are urging broader reforms—including legally binding standards for social media governance.

As Meta faces mounting scrutiny from regulators in the U.S., EU, and beyond, the fallout from this dispute could shape future debates over who gets to decide the rules of speech in the digital public square.