The No Kings coalition said its October 30, 2026, meeting with senior Meta executives ended without substantive commitments to change the company’s practices or add safeguards. The meeting followed an Instagram account suspension that Meta attributed to an automated error. The Oversight Board later pointed to specific gaps in Meta’s mistake-prevention and transparency measures.
What the No Kings coalition said after meeting with Meta
Meta apologized for suspending the coalition’s Instagram account during its October 17 day of action. The company said bursts of activity involving a Claude tool used to read profiles, posts and hashtags triggered automated protections that mistakenly suspended the account.
Andy Stone, Meta’s vice president of communications, explained the company’s account and apology in a post on X:
The coalition said its representatives later met with senior executives on October 30 but left without substantive commitments on practice changes or safeguards.
What safeguards the Oversight Board identified
In a statement dated October 20, the Meta Oversight Board said the No Kings error should have been caught by the company’s mistake-prevention systems. It also said it remained unclear why No Kings accounts were not included in Meta’s cross-check program, which provides human review before severe decisions involving designated civic entities. The Board’s statement also called for public metrics that transparently assess enforcement effectiveness and critical gaps.
The Board described two distinct risks during elections: over-enforcement can suppress political speech, while under-enforcement can undermine election integrity. Its assessment criticized safeguards and transparency; it did not find that Meta acted with political intent.
The other reported U.S. account incident
On October 27, Instagram removed a recently created Spanish-language campaign account for Florida Senate candidate Angie Nixon. Meta said its systems mistakenly assessed the account as impersonating Nixon’s campaign, and the account was restored by the next morning.
What the MPF requested in Brazil
Separately, the Rio Grande do Sul office of Brazil’s Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a civil public action on October 21 against Meta Platforms and Facebook Serviços Online do Brasil. The MPF said it had recorded more than 1,000 cases of disproportionate moderation on Meta platforms in September and October 2026. Those cases are allegations in the filing.
The MPF asked for the restoration of accounts and content identified in its filing, a ban on blocking decisions made exclusively by algorithms, human specialist review of future appeals, and a penalty of R$500,000 per account per day for noncompliance. These are remedies the MPF requested in its civil action, not an imposed penalty. The case is separate from the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court proceeding covered in NeoTeo’s earlier report.
What Meta had said about moderation before these incidents
In January 2025, Meta said it would focus proactive automated enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations, while relying on user reports before acting on less severe violations. The company also said it had added appeal staff, required multiple reviewers in more cases before takedowns, and begun using large language models as a second opinion on some decisions. Meta’s announcement estimated that one or two out of every ten enforcement actions in December 2024 might have been mistakes, excluding large-scale adversarial spam.
Meta later reported about 50% fewer U.S. enforcement mistakes in Q1 2025 than in Q4 2024. The company also said the low prevalence of violating content remained largely unchanged in most problem areas.
