Facebook puts a warning on investigative journalism - and its own support team says in writing that no one can review it

There is one sentence in our chat with Meta that deserves more thought than any technical explanation this corporation may eventually come up with.

"In the situation described, there is definitely no department within the Meta Verified program where this specific situation could be reviewed."

That is not some angry user writing this. That is Vincent from the Meta Pro Team. A human employee. Case number 2218383815374XXX.

By the time that sentence appeared, Facebook had already placed a warning in front of our articles, confronted readers before they opened our magazine with warnings about potentially stolen passwords, money and personal data, and put our website into a context no journalistic outlet should have to accept. At the same time, Facebook says in our own account: no restrictions. Recommendations active. Monetization active. For The Kaizen Blog: "There are no issues with the Page."

Sucuri finds no malware. Google Safe Browsing reports no harmful content. VirusTotal checks the address against 92 security vendors, and not one flags it as malicious.

We did not go on X, insult Meta and then claim no one was listening to us. We went through the support system Meta itself provides to paying, verified users. My account is verified with an official ID (a). I am a journalist and editor-in-chief of The Kaizen Blog, a member of journalistic associations, hold, among other things, a German press card (b), and work as a partner in the LOSI Network (c), which was established by UN DESA and the United Nations University for digital governance and public administration..

Screenshot 1 shows the beginning

We explain to the Meta AI Support Assistant that we want to file a formal complaint. Not throw some random sentence into a chat, but submit a documented complaint with screenshots, security checks and a press card. The assistant replies that it can open a case and forward it to a specialized employee. Because attachments need to be submitted, email would be the best channel.

That matters. Because later, the system practically acts as if that route never existed.

Screenshot 2 goes even further

Vincent joins the chat. Meta Pro Team. Case number 2218383815374XXX. He first asks us not to upload documents that may contain personally identifiable information. That is understandable.

Das ist keine Interpretation von uns. Das steht dort.

Then comes Screenshot 3

So we explain the case in text. We write that Facebook is placing a warning in front of our journalistic website in some cases while our verified account has no restrictions and the Page itself is listed as having no problems. We demand a manual review. No canned response. An explanation.

Up to that point you could still say: fine, support is cumbersome, but at least there is finally a human being there.

Then comes Screenshot 4

We explicitly refer to the Digital Services Act. To Article 14, to transparency, to restrictions, to the question of how such a decision is made in the first place.

And Vincent writes that he cannot meaningfully comment on that. He can only set out the facts as they appear on his side.

Then this sentence:

"In the situation described, there is definitely no department within the Meta Verified program where this specific situation could be reviewed."

That is the moment when an annoying support chat becomes something else. Because what does that sentence mean in practice?

Meta can place a warning in front of a journalistic outlet. That warning can scare readers away and destroy trust. It can damage reach and revenue. But within its own paid support system, there is supposedly no department that can review whether that warning is even correct.

That is not just a badly accessible help desk. That is a power problem. The decision works outward. Responsibility dissolves inward.

Screenshot 5 takes it one step further

n the end, all we are given is the address of "Meta Legal" in Dublin:

Meta Legal
Merrion Road
Ballsbridge
Dublin D04 X2K5
Ireland

Then Vincent writes:

"I wish I had some way to do something about it."

You probably do not get much more honesty out of a corporation this size. He has no way to do anything about it. We are apparently supposed to live with the warning until someone somewhere in Dublin perhaps opens a letter.

Censorship does not only become a problem when someone deletes an article. Anyone who decides what remains visible, what gets warnings attached to it and what readers are discouraged from clicking is interfering long before that. Facebook does not even need to ban some of our articles. It is enough to plant doubt before the click. A reader who sees something about passwords and money does not continue neutrally. They have already been influenced. Some go back. Some believe the site is unsafe. Some remember only one thing: wasn't there something wrong with that site ... The article is still sitting on our server. But between it and the reader stands a warning sign. That is exactly why this is not some harmless technical glitch.

It gets even more absurd when you look at how we publish our articles in the first place.

We already write a short summary on Facebook. Anyone who has read enough there does not have to open our magazine. The full article is then linked in the comments.

The notice in the Professional Dashboard read: "Links in your caption can be distracting and reduce your reach. Try adding a link in the comments instead."

Social Media Today documented this with screenshots on June 15, 2025.

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/facebook-advice-suggests-adding-links-in-comments-not-post-caption/750754

We are not using some trick. We are following a publishing method Facebook itself recommended. And now that exact route is being hit with a warning.

Right-wing bots. Accounts visibly carrying "Made in Russia." Disinformation, fabricated stories, coordinated outrage. Much of it shoots through posts and comment sections before anyone even asks for a source. Anyone trying to protect people from that gets shoved up against the digital wall - Facebook 2026..

When we investigate right-wing populism, the Trump administration, ICE, deportations, state violence, courts, government agencies, or human and international law, we regularly run into resistance - and journalism has to be able to take that. But we also face resistance aimed at the work itself, in every possible forum. We know that all too well from years of experience. We see the same thing with climate change: first the facts are denied, then the people documenting them are attacked.

And for us, it has long since stopped being just about articles.

Because of the U.S. military operation in Venezuela, we submitted an Amicus Curiae brief to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Another submission was filed with the International Criminal Court in The Hague; receipt was confirmed.

The documentation is here: Why We Are Having the US Military Operation Reviewed by International Bodies

At the same time, we are reviewing deaths connected to ICE, supporting people detained in ICE facilities, and examining events from the Iran war. We are also preparing current reviews on those matters. This is not some folklore for an "About Us" page. It costs time, travel, documents, translations and, often enough, our own money. None of us receives a salary.

We really are crazy enough to do this work without a salary and put even more of our own money into it.

Maybe that makes it easier to understand why we need support. We finance investigations while a platform that provides a substantial part of our reach is simultaneously putting a warning sign in front of those investigations. And that is exactly where a technical incident becomes a journalistic problem.

Meta has received specific questions from us. Which URL is supposedly dangerous? Which rule is supposed to have been violated? Was the warning triggered by an automated system, by user complaints (and yes, a few people come to mind ... ) or by some external security list that does not even exist? Why were we not informed?

Only the sentence that no department is provided for this.

The DSA says something else. Article 14 requires transparency and proportionate action. Article 17 provides for a specific statement of reasons for the restriction decisions covered by it. Article 20 requires an internal complaint-handling system and prohibits complaint decisions from being made exclusively by automated means. We are therefore not going to sit around waiting until Meta perhaps feels like taking a look itself someday. The screenshots and comments have been secured. So has the full support history. The security checks are available, and so is the case number. The letter is going to Dublin.

And if Meta still cannot find a department that feels responsible, there are bodies outside Meta that are responsible. Article 53 DSA opens the way to the competent Digital Services Coordinator. In Germany, that responsibility lies with the Federal Network Agency.

Until then, we will partly route our readers from Facebook through Bluesky into the magazine. Not elegant. But better than stopping in front of a warning sign. In the coming days, we will publish our letter to Meta. That means more work and costs valuable time.

And one more thing belongs here.

Support our work, our investigations and our reporting

Anyone who wants to make sure right-wing populism isn’t simply allowed to roll on unchecked, that violations of human rights and international law are documented, that we stand up to the Trump regime, that deaths in ICE custody don’t just disappear into a case file, that innocent people aren’t left sitting in ICE detention centers, that right-wing populism is stopped in Europe too, that the Iran war is properly examined, and that when it comes to climate change, facts matter more than the volume of those who deny them, is directly supporting that work by supporting us. Every single day, we’re fighting against a bitter headwind - and we keep going anyway.

Because somebody has to do this work. Now more than ever.