is de sed repeating the EU agency around the prohibition of Facebook and Instagram

Metamorphology bruises EU authorities repeatedly due to Facebook and Instagram user locks

An independent body that listens to disputes between social media users in the EU says that Meta virtually never responds when it appeals to cases of people who say they were wrongly excluded from their accounts. The Appeals Centre Europe examined 4,600 cases of Facebook, Instagram and Threads users who stated they were illegally locked, but Meta provided evidence in less than 100 of these cases. Last year, the BBC was contacted by hundreds of Facebook and Instagram users in countries around the world, including the United Kingdom, who claimed that they were illegally locked and had no way to get back their accounts. Meta was contacted for a comment. The Appeals Centre Europe is one of several independent dispute resolution bodies that allow people in the EU to challenge decisions of social media platforms, including account blocking and content moderation. The report shows only a snapshot of the wider social media landscape in Europe, where for various reasons hundreds of millions of content are removed from platforms every year. Account closures were the biggest problem that was reported to her by March 2026. “In most cases in the context of bankruptcy, platforms are not able or willing to provide the content that allows us to independently review their decisions,” says the Transparency Report. Meta provided relevant content for less than 100 out of more than 4,600 cases of account blockages, according to the report, which “shows significant frustration among users”. Some spoke of the significant personal burdens that this meant for them, including the fear that the police might intervene, and the impact that bans on their online transactions could have. Meta repeatedly refused to comment on the problems of its users – but frequently raised barriers when the BBC addressed individual cases. Alleged hate speech not removed

The appeal centre’s report also assessed the content reported there, users said they should be removed, including more than 1,400 cases of content identified as hate speech. “For more than two thirds of our decisions on hate speeches, we have found that platforms have failed to enforce their own policies and have left hateful content,” said managing director Thomas Hughes. As examples he mentioned anti-wife, racist, homophobic and transphobic contributions. On TikTok, 83% of potential hate speeches were not removed, followed by 74% on Instagram. On Facebook it was 61%, on YouTube 58%. An example of a decision in which the European vocation centre was not in agreement with the platforms was when racist comments were left on Instagram after a champion league game in which black footballers were compared with monkeys. In another case, anti-Semitic videos on YouTube, shared by prominent personalities in Poland, are likely to remain on the website, which directly contradicts the platform's hatred speeches. In addition, it was pointed out that a video about the Russian Ukraine war created by the AI was also allowed to be displayed on TikTok, as it seems to be violating the rules on misinformation. However, in 72% of more than 10,000 messages, social media companies did not provide relevant content for review. “In the case of almost 3,000 decisions where we were able to review the content, we did not agree with the platform in 59% of cases,” said the conciliation office. The Appeals Centre Europe added that it did not receive consistent data on whether or not its decisions were implemented, and ‘force platforms to provide them’. TikTok did not want to give the BBC an official answer, but according to the company's information, it worked together with the vocation center through meetings and emails. YouTube said that his directive on hate speeches “provides clear guidelines that prohibit content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups due to certain features. We strictly enforce this directive.’

The company said that it was willing to cooperate with out-of-court dispute settlement bodies such as the Appeals Centre Europe, and agreed to share controversial content with them.