Community Standards
Policies that outline what is and isn't allowed on our apps.
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.
Age-Appropriate Content
Explore how we help teens have safe, positive experiences on Facebook and Instagram.
Our Approach To Dangerous Organizations and Individuals
How we approach dangerous organizations and individuals.
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.
How technology helps prioritize review
UPDATED
JAN 19, 2022
Whether potentially violating content is reported by people or detected by Meta’s technology, automation helps us quickly route the content to reviewers who have the right subject matter and language expertise.
We then use technology to rank and prioritize content so our review teams can focus on the most important cases first. This includes content with the potential for offline harm, such as posts related to terrorism and suicide, and viral content that violates our policies and has the potential to reach a large audience.
To make sure review teams spend more time focused on the right decisions, we’re always making improvements to our technology and processes.
How Meta prioritizes content for reviewWhy review teams are important for content enforcement
To reduce harm in our community, our technology and human review teams are always working together. Here are some ways reviewers, in tandem with technology, help strengthen our entire content enforcement system.
Training our technologyWhen reviewers make a decision about a piece of content, they’re simultaneously training and refining our technology to help it identify other pieces of similar content over time. This human-technology feedback loop is vital to keeping our systems current.
Improving our artificial intelligence algorithmsWhen reviewing violating content, review teams manually label the policy guiding their decision, which means they mark the policy that the content, account or behavior violates. This important labeling data helps us improve the quality of our artificial intelligence algorithms that proactively search for harmful content.
Making difficult decisionsOur technology does well in 2 areas in particular: detecting repeated violations and identifying obviously graphic or extreme content. But when there’s a high degree of ambiguity, complexity or nuance in whether our policies apply to a piece of content, reviewers tend to make better decisions than technology.
