Meta’s Content Moderation Shift: Should brands be worried?

“It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms.” Joel Kaplan, Meta's newly appointed chief global affairs officer, minced no words while unveiling sweeping changes to the company's content moderation policies. The announcement marks a significant departure from Meta's previous approach, as it discontinues its partnerships with third-party fact-checkers and loosens restrictions on politically sensitive topics like immigration and gender identity.

Instead of relying on external fact-checkers, Meta plans to implement a system akin to "Community Notes," (similar to the one X has adopted under Elon Musk) allowing users to flag content they believe is inaccurate or requires additional context. CEO Mark Zuckerberg justified the changes, calling the previous guidelines “disconnected from mainstream discourse.”

Meta’s decision has drawn criticism from third-party fact-checking organisations and newsrooms worldwide, which have partnered with the platform for years. According to a WIRED article, fact-checking organisations such as Check Your Fact and Lead Stories have expressed frustration over Zuckerberg's allegations of political bias within the fact-checking programme. They insist on adhering to the highest standards of journalism and ethics, as outlined by the International Fact-Checking Network's code of principles.

Among the updates to Meta's Community Guidelines, significant revisions have been made to the “Hateful Conduct” policy. Content previously deemed prohibited—such as claims linking mental illness to gender expression or sexual orientation and gender-based role limitations—will now be allowed if presented as political or religious discourse. Critics argue that this move, inter alia, opens the door to harmful rhetoric targeting LGBTQ+ communities.

Meta’s fact-checking partners were reportedly caught off guard by the decision to abandon third-party fact-checking across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Nevertheless, the company maintains bans on severe attacks, including Holocaust denial, blackface, and overt dehumanizing language. However, the removal of provisions linking hateful speech to offline violence has raised alarms, especially given Meta’s controversial history of enabling real-world harm, such as during the Myanmar crisis. (A 2022 Amnesty International report has accused Meta of contributing to violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar through its algorithmic systems, which amplified hate speech and anti-Rohingya content.)

Meanwhile, Nicola Mendelsohn, Head of Global Business Group at Meta, wrote on LinkedIN that the platform will ensure “brand safety and suitability through our robust suite of tools for advertisers.”

The policy overhaul has ignited heated discussions about Meta’s global responsibility in regulating harmful content and the risks of amplifying divisive discourse. While the company frames the changes as a step toward greater free expression, critics fear they could exacerbate polarization and endanger vulnerable communities.

Should brands be worried?

Since Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition of X in 2022, many advertisers have withdrawn their ads due to concerns over hate speech stemming from reduced content moderation, brand safety, and uncertainty about the platform's direction.

The impact of these policy changes continues to haunt X, as brand safety remains a top priority for marketers. According to a recent Kantar’s Media Reactions 2024 report, a net 26% of marketers have reported plans to reduce ad spend on X in 2025, “the biggest recorded pullback from any major global ad platform.” 

The Kantar’s report has found that only 4% of marketers think adverts on X provide brand safety (in contrast to Google, which comes top for brand safety at 39%). Gonca Bubani, Global Thought Leadership Director – Media at Kantar, says that X has changed “so much in recent years and can be unpredictable from one day to the next – it’s difficult to feel confident about your brand safety in that environment.”

With Meta scaling back its content moderation policies in the US, is there a possibility of a similar backlash from advertisers in view of the growing concerns over brand safety? In this two-part series, Adgully attempts to analyse this aspect.

Brands and advertisers are likely to adopt a cautious "wait-and-watch" approach, opines Ashish Bhasin, Founder, The Bhasin Consulting Group. He doesn't foresee any immediate implications, but advertisers will undoubtedly monitor developments closely, particularly given their concerns around brand safety. According to him, ensuring that policy changes do not expose their brands to unsafe or inappropriate content is crucial.

“Advertisers need reassurance that their associations will remain aligned with appropriate and ethical content. While there may not be any immediate action, brands will be cautious, observing how these changes unfold and their potential impact—particularly in India. Understanding the broader implications of these shifts is vital for strategizing their next steps,” he says.

Bhasin points out the influence of Elon Musk’s constant policy changes at Twitter, especially regarding moderation. According to him, such decisions have had significant social implications, often polarizing the platform and creating a high-stakes, politically charged environment, especially in the US. At that time, some Indian brands may have reacted due to their affiliation with global networks or multinational corporations. Global decisions on advertising are often filtered down to Indian counterparts.

“However, in this instance, we haven’t seen any significant stances from global MNCs yet. Therefore, Indian brands, including MNCs operating in India, are unlikely to alter their strategies immediately. Both globally and in India, the focus will be on observing outcomes and gauging whether these changes lead to any adverse impacts. If negative outcomes arise, action will likely follow. However, such scenarios often take time to develop, so a knee-jerk reaction seems unlikely at this point. Do Indian brands bear an ethical responsibility to evaluate their ad spending on platforms like Meta? It’s an important question to consider,” says Bhasin.

Advertisers value trust and safety, so when platforms fail to protect brand reputation, it raises red flags, says Siva Balakrishnan, CEO & Founder of Vserve.

“We saw this with Twitter/X when Elon Musk’s leadership relaxed content moderation, leading to a wave of hate speech and impersonation. Many advertisers quickly pulled out, fearing their brands would be associated with harmful content. Now, with Meta scaling back moderation in the US, a similar scenario could unfold. Advertisers may start questioning the safety of their investments, especially if harmful or misleading content becomes prevalent. However, Meta’s vast reach and robust targeting tools may keep many brands hesitant to leave entirely. Instead, advertisers might push for stricter safeguards or look to newer platforms like TikTok or emerging social media players,” says Balakrishnan.

He believes that in today’s competitive digital landscape, band safety is non-negotiable. If Meta doesn’t address concerns promptly, advertisers could shift budgets to platforms prioritizing moderation. Trust, after all, is easier lost than regained.

Advertisers have always had to go through the ‘review process’ while deploying ads on Meta’s platforms. With their new community-driven approach, it is likely to get easier for advertisers to deploy ads, says Rishi Sen, Senior Vice President – Business, Strategy & Founding Partner, DO.

According to Sen, impersonation and overall safety has and will continue to be a concern in this ever-evolving landscape, with or without the third-party independent fact-checkers. “As agency partners to clients, we need to be more vigilant than ever and ensure that we track our clients’ digital footprint rigorously and continue to flag any mischief that may take place at a higher frequency because of this change.” 

Chetan Asher, Founder and CEO, Tonic Worldwide, believes this move may cause some initial unrest and uneasiness among advertisers, but it is not likely to spark a significant backlash - at least not as an immediate, knee-jerk reaction. Meta’s platforms offer a much greater reach than X, and that potential is hard for many brands to dismiss. Asher also expects Meta to learn from X’s experiences with content moderation and address advertisers’ brand safety concerns accordingly.

Elon Musk’s acquisition was highly dramatized and accompanied by tremendous confusion as the leadership had changed and the employees themselves didn't know if they had a future, says Yash Chandiramani, Founder and Chief Strategist, Admatazz. This, according to him, led to advertisers cooling off for a bit. But brands did resume their spends. It was more to do with this confusion.

“Twitter has always been a hotbed of strong political opinions and hate speech, so brands were also concerned about that and a little more careful about twitter. I don't think the same backlash is probable with the Meta issue but it's still possible to see some amount of hesitation amongst advertisers,” he adds.

One must understand that facts are not censorship, and fact-checkers do not censor anything, points out Ahmed Aftab Naqvi, Global CEO & Co founder, Gozoop.

However, Naqvi adds, when platforms attempt to take control of this, the question of transparency is paramount because there are possibilities of bias coming into the picture too.

“Meta's upcoming modifications will take effect across all its major social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. More than 3 billion people worldwide are on these platforms, and a large-scale backlash from brands may not occur. It's their universe. Of course, concerns will be raised if there isn't transparency; but Meta is too big for advertisers to completely avoid. As far as India is concerned, I think ours is a complex market, primarily due to its sheer size. Also, in a country where social and political tensions are high, brands are expected to take a stand as well. Brands must be mindful of what they say and where they communicate. Having said that, it's crucial that platforms take input from all stakeholders while implementing these policy changes. This is the only fair way to deal with it,” Naqvi concludes.

Robin Thomas, Lead - Strategic Partnerships & Growth, White Rivers Media, believes that content moderation is evolving as a practical business response, reflecting the realities of today’s digital ecosystem rather than a shift driven by idealism.

Thomas feels that despite mixed-reactions, the platform's proven brand safety systems and robust infrastructure remain strong, ensuring advertisers can confidently engage their audiences.

“Forward-thinking brands understand that staying strategically active on major platforms is vital to sustaining market relevance. By embracing thoughtful advertising strategies and prioritising responsible practices, companies can safeguard their influence while contributing to a balanced digital environment. This collaboration between platforms, brands, and users underscores the power of aligning commercial priorities with social responsibility,” he adds.

Ad performance in India presents a double-edged sword, observes Sunitha Natarajan, Director of Digital Strategy at Social Panga. "On one hand, reduced content moderation could initially boost user engagement by fostering increased interaction and a sense of ownership. On the other hand, the unchecked spread of misinformation poses a significant risk. This could erode user trust, impact ad visibility, and potentially drive advertisers away due to concerns over brand safety," she explains.

(Tomorrow: In the second part of this report, we will explore the societal implications of reduced content moderation in a market like India. We will also examine whether Indian brands have an ethical responsibility to reconsider their advertising spend on platforms with minimal content moderation.)