Internal docs: Facebook removed “strikes” so that at least 2 conservative pages, from PragerU and Diamond & Silk, dodged penalties under misinformation policies
Facebook has allowed conservative news outlets and personalities to repeatedly spread false information without facing …
NBC NewsOlivia Solon
Context & Ripple Effects
The strikes story is the latest entry in a four-year arc of documented asymmetry at Facebook. It began when ex-curators described suppressing conservative news from trending topics in 2016, followed by reports that Facebook shelved an update that would have flagged fake news because it would have disproportionately hit right-wing sites.
Facebook then commissioned a bias audit that drew criticism from both sides for resting on interviews with 130 unnamed conservatives rather than internal data. The new internal documents move the question from perception to mechanics: rather than applying penalties unevenly, the company removed the penalty system itself so pages like PragerU and Diamond & Silk never accrued strikes.
First-order effects
PragerU and Diamond & Silk escaped penalties they would otherwise have faced under Facebook's misinformation policies, since the strikes that trigger enforcement were deleted rather than counted.
Third-party fact-checkers and employees, who already told BuzzFeed that Facebook sometimes overrules divisive-content decisions without transparency, now have documentation that enforcement rules bend to political pressure.
Second-order effects
Conservative publishers have effectively priced in exemption: after prominent conservatives warned in 2016 that fact-checking would not be applied evenly, Facebook's own behavior confirmed the warning, weakening any future claim that penalties are rule-based.
Rival platforms face the same political bind, and Facebook's choice — delete the mechanism instead of defend it — offers them a template for resolving pressure quietly rather than transparently.
Third-order effects
Content moderation at major platforms risks becoming politically negotiated rather than uniformly enforced: if internal data shows penalties are removed under pressure, regulators and auditors will push for external oversight of enforcement records, not just policies.
The gap between published community standards and actual enforcement becomes the durable governance problem, eroding the legitimacy of platform-led self-regulation regardless of which party benefits.
The trend: Platform moderation is shifting from rule-based enforcement toward politically negotiated exemptions, with each documented carve-out making uniform enforcement harder to restore.
NEW: Under Facebook's own rules, high-profile accounts get their reach and advertising restricted if they have two misinformation “strikes” within 90 days. Leaked internal documents show FB repeatedly bent these rules for conservative partners https://www.nbcnews.com/...
SCOOP: Facebok employees collected evidence showing preferential treatment of right wing figures. FB policy ppl removed misinfo strikes from Breitbart, PragerU, and Diamond & Silk, according to internal docs. And FB fired a key employee who gathered info: https://www.buzzfeednews…
Here's @oliviasolon with new info about internal leaks at Facebook about the company giving preferential treatment to conservative publishers. She has more details on the removal of misinfo “strikes,” and about the fired FB employee we also wrote about: https://www.nbcnews.com/..…
As @BuzzFeedNews reported yesterday, Joel Kaplan personally intervened to get the misinformation escalations team to investigate why an Instagram post by Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk was fact-checked. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ ...
On a similar front, Facebook and its allies spread a ridiculous narrative over the past few years that mainstream press was out to get Facebook (for clicks, jealousy, competition). Quite the opposite and newsrooms should be digging in even harder now to expose FB abuse of power. …
The media ecosystem around one of our two major parties runs on made up claims and conspiracy theories. Facebook has institutionally committed itself to denial of this fact. It also says it has rules against spreading misinformation. The two commitments are in conflict. THREAD ht…
Remember: Facebook is a corrupt company which focuses on monetizing right wing misinformation campaigns and hate groups. Also has a niche business in amplifying Russian psy-ops operations. https://twitter.com/...
This @oliviasolon article is a barn-burner. @facebook is knowingly bending their rules for outlets like Breitbart & Gateway Pundit, two well-known Hate & misinformation peddlers. Any platform with this much power should not be catering to any political part. #StopHateForProfit ht…
yet another reason why its so painful to listen to conservative leaders whine about online bias by platforms, while in reality they receive preferential treatment and reap the bounties of gaming algorithmic distribution https://twitter.com/...
It's becoming clearer that Facebook employees will be what gets the company to fix itself. Government regulation and advertiser boycotts are little thorns. But you can't run a company if the employees are constantly talking to the press. https://twitter.com/...
when 1100+ advertisers boycott @Facebook over hate, Zuck says they can't cave to such pressure. but when Diamond & Silk call, fact-checks magically disappear. https://twitter.com/...
Put another way, Facebook is happy to let factcheckers act as umpire and call balls and strikes. But if the game plays out in a way the company doesn't like, Facebook has no problem going back to fix the score.
What this shows is that Facebook doesn't want to be “the arbiter of truth” and leaves this to factcheckers, but when there's potential PR or advertising fallout from a factcheck, the company will cave to the loudest voices.
.@oliviasolon with more details on the internal battles playing out inside Facebook as employees find that strikes for misinformation on right-wing pages are being escalated and erased by Facebook higher ups. https://www.nbcnews.com/...
A Facebook whistleblower to @oliviasolon: “The data shows that [Facebook's fake news appeals process] is instead being used primarily to shield conservative fake news from the consequences.” https://www.nbcnews.com/...
FB gets lots of complaints from accounts that have been fact-checked, but few are “escalated” to senior leadership because of “PR risk” or “partner sensitivity” Two thirds of the ~30 misinfo “escalations” since Feb came from conservative partners https://www.nbcnews.com/...
FB's policy says publishers must contact a fact checker that gives the rating if they want to dispute it. But the docs show that people such as VP of global public policy Joel Kaplan have intervened on behalf of conservatives like Charlie Kirk. In some cases checks were removed h…
Some examples. A FB employee found Joel Kaplan, the co's VP of public policy, personally flagged a fact check of a Charlie Kirk Instagram post for resolution. In another case, a partner manager for PragerU argued the page should not be factchecked because it ran a lot of ads. htt…
In one case, Diamond & Silk appealed a “false” rating directly with the checker. It was downgraded to “partly false” on merit. But then someone in “Policy/Leadership” at Facebook intervened and removed it and a previous rating on their page, according to internal convos. https://…