-
Since 30 April 2026, Meta has placed geo-block on the Facebook & Instagram accounts belonging to popular human rights organisations & researchers in the Gulf countries.
-
The Silicon Valley company placed restrictions on over 100 Facebook pages & Instagram accounts since March 2026, citing it as a way to comply with cybercrime laws present in Saudi Arabia & the UAE.
-
An temporary alliance of twelve international rights organisations, plus Electronic Frontier Foundation & Access Now, is mandating Meta to share the legal requests it got publicly and remove the restrictions on the accounts plus an explanation of how its action complies with the human rights policies it put in place.
Meta, the company behind Facebook & Instagram, has in recent times become a compliance arm acting on behalf of Gulf state censorship by placing geo-blocks on the accounts belonging to defenders of human rights, plus those of independent researchers, & civil society organisations.
According to the company, it took this action due to the request it received from Saudi Arabia & the United Arab Emirates. The revelation sparked outrage, with many accusing corporations of enabling authoritarianism.
The locking of accounts & the victims affected
Meta started this move on April 30, 2026. On that day, ALQST for Human Rights, Democratic Diwan, Abdullah Alaoudh, and Yahya Assiri found their Facebook accounts blocked in Saudi Arabia.
Meta rendered these accounts “unavailable,” upholding a popular practice in the digital space known as Geo-blocking. And there was another restriction of the same thing in the UAE that involves an academic. Over 100 Facebook and Instagram accounts have been restricted by Meta since March 2026.
Meta said the accounts were restricted for non-compliance with local laws, citing content related to regional geopolitical conflicts and security developments.
The timing of these restrictions is not an accident. Since the US & Israel struck Iran on February 28, 2026, governments in the Gulf countries moved fast to tighten the environment that shares information so they can put a leash on what the citizens see, say, or share about the attacks taking place in their countries.
The pattern is no longer taking place in Meta only. On April 15, 2026, X users received notices that their accounts were under restriction in the UAE due to an order that came from the country’s Telecommunications & Digital Government Regulatory Authority.
The notices didn’t come alone but had a four-page decision which the UAE Federal Public Prosecution took, citing the Crimes & Penalties Law of 2021, plus the Anti-Rumours & Cybercrimes Law of 2021.
The Notice accused the holders of the accounts of “exceeding the limits of freedom of expression” & sharing “misleading & tendentious information.”
As of May, X hasn’t agreed to comply with the Saudi government’s request for a geoblocked activist account, which is the opposite of what Meta recently did.
The legal shield and its human rights contradiction
In its defence, Meta said it only carried out the action after a legal review. The company stated it carried out “human rights due diligence assessments” before taking action per the government requests.
The notification Meta sent out said that it was complying with local laws that have to do with the cybercrime legislation of Saudi Arabia & the UAE.
Notably, these governments in the past have used these laws to silence dissent & prevent people from expressing their views online.
These laws have led to the arrest, trial, and sentencing of critics and activists for sharing dissenting views on social media, including Facebook.
The organisations signing the condemnation asked Meta to disclose its human rights review of ALQST’s page and other restricted accounts.
They also want to know the people who conducted the review and the standards they applied, plus how Meta decided that putting a restriction on a human rights organisation because a government that imprisons people for their posts on social media asked it to do so.
The irony of the whole matter is that the human rights policy belonging to Meta promised to protect its users from government censorship. But instead of doing what it promised, the company has sided with the government.
Meanwhile, Google has taken a different kind of enforcement action. The company shut down a massive proxy network that was abusing millions of Android phones, a reminder that tech platforms face complex decisions about how to police their infrastructure.
A coalition asks Meta to revoke the action
Twelve digital rights, press freedom, and Middle East advocacy groups issued a joint statement condemning Meta’s action.
Signatories included Access Now, the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, MENA Rights Group, and SMEX, among others.
They are demanding that Meta disclose the legal requests from Saudi and UAE authorities and its internal assessments.
They also want Meta to restore the accounts and inform users of the specific content that led to the restrictions. Also want Meta to reveal the law that the users violated.
The coalition also wants Meta to clarify any role its Gulf offices played and whether actions were driven by legal compliance or business interests.
