Meta’s Double Standard: Silencing Truth, Amplifying Disinformation in Syria’s Digital Landscape
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, stands accused of fostering a dangerous double standard in its content moderation practices, particularly concerning the Syrian information space. While allowing politically charged disinformation to proliferate unchecked, the platform actively suppresses credible, fact-checked content that debunks these harmful narratives, often citing nebulous justifications such as “harassment” or “community standards violations.” This inconsistent application of policy has profound consequences, exacerbating the already volatile information environment in Syria and eroding public trust. Fake accounts masquerading as official representatives of international organizations spread misleading narratives on sensitive issues, while verified journalistic efforts to expose these falsehoods are silenced.
This report details a disturbing pattern of Meta’s leniency towards disinformation actors and its simultaneous suppression of efforts to counter their narratives. Several case studies illustrate this dynamic: individuals falsely claiming affiliations with the UN and other international bodies disseminate misinformation regarding detainee files, humanitarian aid, and refugee affairs, exploiting the public’s trust in these institutions to gain credibility. Bassam Hanna, for example, presents himself as a “UN diplomat” and “Doctor of International Law and Human Rights” across a network of Facebook pages boasting over 6.1 million followers. Despite ample evidence demonstrating the falsity of his claims, Meta not only allows Hanna’s accounts to remain active but also removed a fact-check by Verify-Sy exposing his fabricated credentials, citing “harassment.” This incident serves as a stark example of the platform’s skewed moderation practices, wherein verified fact-checkers are penalized while disinformation actors operate with impunity.
Sarmad AlTall represents another instance of this troubling trend. AlTall claims to be a “legislative judge at the United Nations headquarters” on his Facebook page, using this fabricated title to lend an air of authority to his posts, which often include attacks on the Syrian government and the propagation of conspiracy theories. Despite the UN explicitly denying any affiliation with AlTall, Meta has taken no action against his account. Similarly, Shadi Abu Ammar, operating under the pseudonym “Waheed,” manages a network of Facebook pages that have shifted from neutral content to promoting secessionist rhetoric and calls for armed conflict, even circulating videos later debunked by Verify-Sy. Despite clear violations of Meta’s policies on incitement to violence and misinformation, Abu Ammar’s pages remain active.
Harout Kehaian, another individual highlighted in this report, has a history of supporting the Assad regime and engaging in armed activities. His Facebook pages now disseminate conspiracy theories and unverified claims about post-Assad Syria. Despite his documented history of violence and the spread of misinformation, Kehaian continues to operate freely on the platform. These cases collectively demonstrate a consistent pattern: Meta’s inaction against those spreading disinformation, coupled with its active suppression of fact-checking efforts, creates a digital landscape where falsehoods thrive and truth struggles to be heard. This dynamic undermines public trust, fuels societal division, and ultimately hinders efforts to promote peace and stability in Syria.
The case of Bassam Hanna highlights not only Meta’s failure to address disinformation but also its active suppression of fact-checking initiatives. Verify-Sy, a Meta-approved fact-checking partner, published a detailed investigation into Hanna’s fabricated credentials and coordinated disinformation campaign. Despite the fact-check being based on open-source research and firsthand testimonies, Meta removed the post, labeling it “harassment.” This action underscores the platform’s double standard: while disinformation actors operate unimpeded, those working to expose them face censorship and restrictions. This incident raises serious concerns about Meta’s commitment to combating disinformation and protecting the integrity of information shared on its platforms. It suggests that the company’s policies are being applied selectively, shielding certain individuals while silencing those who attempt to hold them accountable.
This bias extends beyond the Syrian context. Reports have emerged detailing Meta’s approval of advertisements in India containing explicit calls for violence, while simultaneously removing satirical content critical of public figures in other countries. These examples demonstrate a systemic problem within Meta’s content moderation system, where dangerous content is allowed to proliferate while legitimate expression is suppressed. This inconsistent application of policies further erodes public trust and raises questions about Meta’s true commitment to fostering a safe and informed online environment. The company’s rhetoric about promoting freedom of expression appears hollow in light of its actions.
Meta’s decision in early 2025 to terminate its third-party fact-checking program further exacerbates the problem. This move, framed as a measure to support “freedom of expression,” has been widely criticized as a retreat from the platform’s responsibility to combat disinformation. The timing of the decision, coinciding with internal political pressure from individuals known for spreading misinformation, raises concerns about Meta’s motivations. The termination of the program leaves a void in the fight against disinformation, allowing false narratives to spread unchecked. This, coupled with the increasing targeting of journalists and fact-checkers, creates a chilling effect on efforts to hold powerful actors accountable and expose falsehoods. The dismantling of this critical infrastructure weakens the ability of independent organizations to counter disinformation campaigns and further tilts the balance in favor of those who seek to manipulate public discourse.
Meta’s inconsistent content moderation practices have created a digital ecosystem where disinformation flourishes and truth is suppressed. By allowing bad actors to operate freely while silencing fact-checkers and journalists, Meta is not only failing to uphold its stated commitment to transparency and public safety but is actively contributing to the spread of harmful narratives. This double standard has particularly damaging consequences in contexts like Syria, where the information environment is already fragile and vulnerable to manipulation. The platform’s actions undermine public trust and empower those who seek to exploit the digital space for their own political gain. Meta’s claim of supporting freedom of expression rings hollow when it simultaneously silences those who seek to expose falsehoods and hold powerful actors accountable. The question remains: Will Meta take responsibility for its role in enabling the spread of disinformation and take concrete steps to reform its policies, or will it continue to prioritize profit and political expediency over the integrity of information and the safety of its users? The answer will have profound implications for the future of online discourse and the health of democracies around the world.