The Algorithm’s Verdict

The most powerful editor on Earth no longer wears a press badge. It is an algorithm issuing verdicts against journalism without transparency, accountability or appeal.

It began last year with a piece I published¹ examining Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct during Israel’s war in Gaza. The article was a work of journalism and political analysis. It argued that history would judge his actions through the lens of genocide, drawing upon documented events, public statements and international legal debate. Facebook, however, reached a very different conclusion. The platform classified the article as supporting terrorism. Not documenting it. Not analysing it. Supporting it. There was no meaningful explanation, no transparent reasoning and no opportunity to challenge the decision before the damage had already been done.

That moment marked the beginning of a year-long ordeal that has steadily dismantled my ability to work. Since then, my accounts have been repeatedly suspended, my content restricted, my reach curtailed and my monetisation placed under successive sanctions. Each action appears disconnected in isolation. Together, they form a pattern that has made it increasingly difficult to publish, investigate and earn a living through journalism on one of the world’s largest communications platforms.

The experience reveals something profoundly unsettling about the modern architecture of digital power. Meta likes to portray itself as a neutral platform governed by transparent standards. My experience suggests something rather different: a bureaucracy without accountability, where automated systems make decisions that human representatives appear powerless to explain, let alone reverse. An algorithm delivers the verdict. Customer support inherits the fallout. Responsibility disappears somewhere in between.

My latest conversation with Meta Pro Support was almost absurd in its predictability. After explaining that my accounts had been suspended, that content had been removed and that months of restrictions had prevented me from accessing funds legitimately earned through Facebook’s monetisation programmes, I was told that content removals were not affecting my earnings. When I explained that they plainly were, I was asked to provide screenshots. Before any meaningful investigation had begun, the conversation concluded with a prepared summary informing me that the case would now be closed.

The exchange captures the defining characteristic of platform governance today: the appearance of assistance without the substance of accountability. One is directed from one department to another. Appeals depend upon emails that never arrive. Review mechanisms exist in theory but vanish in practice. Every conversation begins as though no previous conversation has ever taken place. Every case becomes another ticket to be processed, summarised and closed.

For independent journalists, these failures are not mere inconveniences. They strike at the foundations of our profession. Meta has evolved far beyond being a social networking website. It now functions as one of the world’s largest distributors of news, determining visibility, audience reach and, increasingly, financial viability. When such a platform mistakenly labels legitimate journalism, suppresses distribution or interrupts monetisation without effective recourse, it is not simply moderating content. It is exercising immense editorial and economic power without corresponding public accountability.

Mistakes are inevitable in systems operating at global scale. No serious observer expects perfection. The problem begins when mistakes become effectively irreversible. A democratic legal system provides reasons, evidence, appeals and independent review. Platform governance too often provides only conclusions. The accused rarely knows precisely what rule was broken, how the decision was reached or who ultimately bears responsibility for correcting it. There is a verdict, but no court.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that journalism has spent generations scrutinising governments for arbitrary exercises of power. Today, many journalists find themselves constrained by entities whose decisions are even less transparent than those of the states they investigate. Governments can be questioned in parliament. Judges publish their reasoning. Regulators answer to legislatures. Algorithms answer to nobody.

I continue to document every suspension, every restriction and every exchange with Meta because journalism begins with evidence. Whether these repeated actions stem from automated error, systemic flaws or something else entirely remains unclear. What is clear is that a system entrusted with mediating public discourse cannot continue operating as though transparency were optional and accountability an inconvenience. Platforms that increasingly shape the economic survival of independent journalism cannot expect public trust while denying those affected even the most basic principles of procedural fairness.

For more than a year, I have been told to wait. Wait for an email that never arrives. Wait for a review that never materialises. Wait for a solution while cases are routinely closed without one. At some point, waiting ceases to be customer service. It becomes institutional indifference.

---

---

1.