Palestinian News Outlets Accuse Facebook of Content Suppression Amid Gaza War

Several prominent Palestinian news outlets and journalists are accusing Facebook’s parent company, Meta, of systematically limiting the reach of their online content during the ongoing Gaza conflict. According to a recent investigation by the BBC, Palestinian media organizations have experienced a substantial decline in audience engagement—such as likes, comments, and shares—on their Facebook pages since early October 2023, when the latest Israel-Hamas war erupted. The findings raise questions about potential content moderation biases on one of the world’s largest social media platforms, as well as the broader impact on the free flow of information from conflict zones.

BBC News Arabic undertook an extensive analysis of Facebook engagement data, focusing on 20 major Palestinian news outlets. Prior to October 7, 2023—the date marked by the start of the most recent escalation in Gaza—these outlets, including Palestine TV, Wafa News Agency, and Al-Watan News, enjoyed consistent user interactions with their social media posts. These pages served as critical information sources for audiences, particularly as Israel strictly limited the entry of foreign reporters into the Gaza Strip.

However, data examined by the BBC indicates that since the conflict’s onset, engagement on Palestinian news pages has dropped by an estimated 77%. This trend is highly unusual, especially during times of war, when heightened interest in current events typically leads to increased audience attention and interaction. Journalists working at some of these outlets have reported that their posts now reach a dramatically reduced share of their followers, suggesting that platform interventions may be involved.

Palestinian reporters and media professionals have described the situation as a “shadow ban”—a practice where platform algorithms suppress or limit the visibility of certain posts or accounts without overtly removing them. Although Meta has publicly denied any deliberate attempts to stifle Palestinian voices, the drastic reduction in reach has left journalists skeptical.

A journalist affiliated with Palestine TV, which boasts more than 5.8 million Facebook followers, noted that the audience reach of their posts has slumped by about 60%. “Engagement is completely controlled, and our posts are no longer getting through to people,” said Tareq Ziad, a journalist with the network. “It feels as though our stories, our perspectives, and even the voices of ordinary Gazans are being quietly silenced.”

To verify these claims, the BBC analysis compared the engagement rates of Palestinian media outlets to those of 20 major Israeli news outlets, including Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel Hayom, and Channel 13, during the same period. While Palestinian pages experienced a dramatic plunge, Israeli pages saw their audience engagement rise by nearly 37%. This discrepancy, uncovered through neutral data analysis, bolsters the argument that something beyond audience behavior might be influencing the visibility of posts.

Such disparities have intensified claims that the moderation policies implemented by Meta—and by extension Facebook—are not being applied evenly. Critics argue that these practices effectively skew the global understanding of a highly complex conflict and may influence how international communities perceive events unfolding in the Gaza Strip.

Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, has vehemently rejected the idea that it is intentionally suppressing Palestinian content. The company said the notion that it deliberately silences any group’s voice is “unambiguously false.” Instead, Meta cites the complexity of moderating content in multiple languages, especially during a fast-moving conflict.

In 2021, an independent report commissioned by Meta concluded that a lack of Arabic language proficiency among content moderators played a critical role in misinterpretations that led to improper content removals or reduced visibility. According to the report, even benign Arabic phrases and words have sometimes been flagged as hateful or violent because moderators failed to recognize context.

Yet Palestinian journalists say the language argument falls short. To test Meta’s claim, the BBC also examined 30 Arabic-language news pages not affiliated with Palestinian territories, including outlets like Sky News Arabia and Al Jazeera. In these cases, engagement soared by approximately 100% during the same period. If Arabic-language challenges were the primary cause, it stands to reason that these other Arabic outlets would face similar engagement declines—yet they do not.

The Israel-Hamas war has put an unprecedented spotlight on the role of social media platforms in controlling the narrative. The United States classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization, and Meta’s own policies identify it as a “dangerous” group. This designation influences how Meta moderates content referencing Hamas, potentially sweeping up legitimate news reporting into more restrictive moderation filters.

According to internal company communications leaked to the BBC, a former Meta employee revealed that changes were made to Instagram’s moderation algorithm in October 2023, shortly after the conflict escalated. These adjustments, the source claims, made it harder for Palestinian viewpoints and comments to appear prominently. One internal engineer is said to have expressed concern that such changes planted a “procedural bias” against Palestinian users, effectively tilting the platform’s content ecosystem.

Meta acknowledged that some moderation changes were implemented due to the high volume of conflict-related content, particularly from Gaza. The company said these measures aimed to prevent the spread of violent or hateful content and to comply with regulatory requirements in various jurisdictions. Meta insisted that it rolled back some of these changes after the initial phase of the conflict, though it did not specify when these reversals took effect.

The Gaza Strip remains one of the most inaccessible conflict zones for foreign journalists. Early on in the war, Israel allowed only a small handful of foreign reporters to enter Gaza, accompanied at all times by Israeli military officials. For international audiences seeking to understand the plight of civilians on the ground, social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram have become crucial channels. Palestinian-run news agencies, many based in the West Bank or operating remotely, serve as vital conduits for firsthand accounts, local perspectives, and real-time updates.

“Social media is often the only way the world can hear from people inside Gaza,” said a Palestinian media analyst based in Ramallah. “If these platforms start limiting access to those voices, then a huge part of the story remains untold. It could skew global perceptions and undermine public understanding of the human impact of the war.”

Human rights organizations, Palestinian civil society groups, and free-press advocates are calling for greater transparency from Meta. They demand that the company publish detailed data on its content moderation decisions, the algorithms used to rank and recommend posts, and any language-specific guidelines that might influence what users see.

While Meta has previously committed to increasing oversight and has even welcomed independent audits, critics argue that the scale and complexity of the problem have outpaced the company’s current policies. The allegations of shadow banning and algorithmic bias underscore a more fundamental debate about who controls the narrative in a digital age—private corporations or the communities experiencing the conflict?

In response to the BBC’s findings, Meta’s spokesperson reiterated the company’s commitment to maintaining a platform that respects freedom of expression while adhering to international regulations and internal policies aimed at removing extremist content. The spokesperson acknowledged that mistakes happen and said the company is constantly refining its moderation tactics, language capabilities, and policies to reduce unintended suppression of legitimate news content.

Still, Palestinian journalists remain skeptical, insisting that the dramatic drop in engagement speaks for itself. They argue that as the war grinds on, and as international interest ebbs and flows, the world’s understanding of the conflict may increasingly depend on the transparency and fairness of social media giants like Meta.

Conclusion

The allegations leveled by Palestinian journalists against Facebook underscore a critical junction where technology, geopolitics, and human rights intersect. With millions of followers, these media outlets had become essential information lifelines, particularly during a time when on-the-ground reporting is heavily restricted. The stark discrepancies in engagement metrics between Palestinian and Israeli news outlets raise pressing questions about fairness, accountability, and the democratic role of social media in shaping global discourse.

As the Gaza conflict continues to evolve, the focus now shifts to Meta’s next steps. Will the platform restore balance by addressing these concerns transparently, or will Palestinian voices remain muted in the digital conversation that the world relies on to understand one of the region’s most enduring conflicts? The answers may determine how we perceive not just this particular conflict, but also the broader power that large technology firms wield over the global flow of information.