Meta removes queer accounts without explanation: “These kinds of systems operate in breach of European rules”

Removals fit a pattern since Trump’s second term

The wave of removals this spring does not stand on its own, Shahid says. “At the end of 2025 we already saw the largest wave of censorship in years.” Around the world, Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp removed accounts that provided sex education or shared information about abortion and LHBTIQ+ rights.

According to Shahid, this development follows the policy on women’s rights and LHBTIQ+ rights under President Trump’s second term. At his inauguration in January 2025, the major tech executives were seated in the front rows. Shortly afterwards, US government websites deleted terms such as “gender” and “LHBTIQ”. Over the course of 2025, the first queer accounts began to disappear from Meta’s platforms.

Automated moderation leaves account owners in the dark

Administrators of the removed accounts are rarely given a concrete reason. Some received no explanation at all, others only a vague category such as “human exploitation” or “account integrity”. In some cases, when one account was removed, other linked accounts belonging to the same administrators also disappeared. Those affected say that attempts to appeal get stuck in chatbot loops.

This is because moderation is largely automated. “Many of these systems operate on the basis of algorithms, without any human involvement,” Shahid explains. “There is a black box.” Have LHBTIQ+ terms, for instance, been mistakenly classified as pornography? Nobody knows. “If there is no explanation of how a decision has been reached, it becomes very difficult for account holders to lodge an effective appeal.”

The Digital Services Act obliges Meta to provide explanations and appeal routes

Since 2024, the Digital Services Act (DSA) has applied across the entire EU. This legislation requires digital platforms to be transparent about how their services work and how they moderate content. If a platform removes an account, it must state which specific rule has been violated. A general reference to the terms and conditions is not sufficient, according to Shahid. Users must also be able to lodge an appeal.

Very large platforms with more than 45 million users per month in the EU, such as Meta, have additional obligations. They must identify, for each part of their service, which human rights may be at stake and what this means for society. “For the owners of queer accounts, the DSA is of enormous importance, because it forces platforms to be transparent and to offer avenues for redress,” Shahid says. In many of the current cases, she argues, this has not happened. The European Commission is already monitoring Meta and has initiated proceedings against the company.

Affected organisations can report cases to the Commission and the ACM

Those affected are therefore not powerless. Shahid advises owners of removed accounts to submit a well-documented complaint to the European Commission. “This strengthens the case against Meta.” There is also a route within the Netherlands. The Authority for Consumers and Markets (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, ACM) oversees compliance with the DSA in the Netherlands. The ACM forwards reports to the regulator in the country where the platform is established – in Meta’s case, Ireland.

In addition, a collective action is already under way. In May, a coalition sent a formal letter of demand to Meta via the law firm Bureau Brandeis. The coalition includes Repro Uncensored, Bits of Freedom, COC Netherlands, Club Church, The Queer Agenda and Sauna Nieuwezijds. According to the coalition, this is the first time the DSA has been used against discriminatory moderation by a very large platform. Among other things, the organisations demand explanations for the removals and a human point of contact. Other affected accounts can join the action, Shahid notes.

The loss of online space affects the entire queer community

For many owners of queer accounts, social media are an important source of income. For the community itself, more is at stake. “Queer accounts are a safe space where LHBTIQ+ people can be themselves, find like-minded others and see themselves reflected in role models,” Shahid says. When that space disappears without explanation, it feels unjust. “There may also be discrimination at play. LHBTIQ+ people are being systematically pushed out of the public online domain.”

According to Shahid, algorithms harm LHBTIQ+ people not only by removing accounts. They can also fuel hateful sentiment. She points to the HBSC study by Utrecht University and the Trimbos Institute on young people’s wellbeing. It shows that the share of boys in secondary education with a positive attitude towards homosexuality fell from 40 to 22 per cent between 2021 and 2025. Among girls, it dropped from 78 to 51 per cent. Social media play a major role in this, she argues. “Algorithms that promote the manosphere and fail to remove hateful content ensure that intolerance in society is also actively encouraged in the digital sphere.”

Shahid wants Meta to reverse its relaxed rules on incitement to hatred

It is precisely on this point that Meta loosened its own rules in 2025. Hateful statements against women and LHBTIQ+ people no longer automatically count as a violation. “The relaxing of the rules effectively facilitates online digital violence,” Shahid says. She argues that Meta should reverse this change “so that LHBTIQ+ people can no longer be labelled as mentally ill or abnormal, and trans people are no longer subjected to abuse.”