Facebook Community Standards
Policies that outline what is and isn't allowed on the Facebook app.
Instagram Community Guidelines
Policies that outline what is and isn't allowed on the Instagram app.
Meta Advertising Standards
Policies for ad content and business assets.
Other policies
Other policies that apply to Meta technologies.
How Meta improves
How we update our policies, measure results, work with others, and more.
Our approach to the opioid epidemic
How we support communities in the face of the opioid epidemic.
Our approach to elections
How we help prevent interference, empower people to vote and more.
Our approach to misinformation
How we work with independent fact-checkers, and more, to identify and take action on misinformation.
Our approach to newsworthy content
How we assess content for newsworthiness.
Our approach to Facebook Feed ranking
How we reduce problematic content in News Feed.
Our approach to explaining ranking
How we build AI systems.
Content Library and Content Library API
Comprehensive access to public data from Facebook and Instagram
Ad Library tools
Comprehensive and searchable database of all ads currently running across Meta technologies
Other research tools and datasets
Additional tools for in-depth research on Meta technologies and programs
Community Standards Enforcement Report
Quarterly report on how well we're doing at enforcing our policies on the Facebook app and Instagram.
Intellectual Property
Report on how well we're helping people protect their intellectual property.
Government Requests for User Data
Report on government request for people's data.
Content Restrictions Based on Local Law
Report on when we restrict content that's reported to us as violating local law.
Internet Disruptions
Report on intentional internet restrictions that limit people's ability to access the internet.
Widely Viewed Content Report
Quarterly report on what people see on Facebook, including the content that receives the widest distribution during the quarter.
Regulatory and Other Transparency Reports
Download current and past regulatory reports for Facebook and Instagram.
The people behind Meta's review teams
UPDATED
JAN 19, 2022
Meta’s review teams consist of full-time employees who review content as part of a larger set of responsibilities, as well as content reviewers employed by our partners. They come from different backgrounds, reflect our diverse community and have an array of professional experiences—from veterans to legal specialists to enforcement experts in policy areas such as child safety, hate speech and counterterrorism.
We partner with companies that employ over 15,000 reviewers who help in doing the job of reducing harm. Our review teams are global and review content 24/7. We have over 20 sites around the world, where these teams can review content in over 50 languages.
As an essential branch of our content enforcement system, review teams must have language proficiency and cultural competency to do their job well.
Language proficiency
To help us review content around the world, reviewers are proficient in the languages our community uses. For example, if someone reports a Tagalog-language post in the middle of the night in the Philippines, our system routes it to a Tagalog-speaking reviewer—either local or based in another time zone—for further review.
For some policy areas, such as adult nudity, content review is more straightforward, so language proficiency isn’t required. In these cases, reviewers from around the world can review this content.
Cultural competency
We have reviewers who know and understand the cultures represented across Meta technologies. For example, Spanish speakers from Mexico, not Spain, are hired to review content from Mexico. It’s important that reviewers know the specific meanings of words, cultural context, local celebrities or the latest news stories to have the necessary context about a post and apply our policies accurately.
This is especially useful when it comes to different words for slurs across cultures. While we enforce our policy on slurs the same way everywhere, reviewers need to know the colloquial language that’s considered an attack on a protected group in their region.
