Topic analysis

Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Arabia and the UAE

The undersigned organisations condemn Meta’s recent decision to  restrict  the Facebook and Instagram accounts of independent NGOs, researchers, and civil society figures from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This is the latest in a pattern of major technology companies, including Meta, acting as enforcement arms for repressive governments in the Gulf. We call on Meta to uphold its human rights responsibilities and ensure that users’ content is not arbitrarily restricted. Since 30 April 2026, Gulf-focused NGOs  ALQST for Human Rights  and  Democratic Diwan , as well as Saudi researcher Abdullah Alaoudh and human rights defender Yahya Assiri, have had their Facebook accounts rendered “unavailable” in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi government, in a form of “geo-blocking”. Similar restrictions have been imposed in the UAE, including against an academic. According to Meta's publicly available  content restriction reports , over 100 Facebook pages and Instagram accounts have been restricted since March 2026. This follows a similar  pattern  on X (formerly Twitter). Most recently, the Saudi government  requested  that a number of X accounts belonging to prominent Saudi activists be geo-blocked. As of the publication date (20 May), X had not complied. The undersigned organisations consider these measures arbitrary, discriminatory, and a direct violation of the right to freedom of expression and access to information. Affected users were  notified  that Meta acted in response to a “local legal requirement” or a “request from a government” (i.e. Saudi Arabia and the UAE), demonstrating the company’s willingness to comply with demands from state authorities that routinely suppress, surveil, and criminalise online expression. Meta’s notifications cite compliance with “local laws”, and its  reports  specify the cybercrime laws of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Authorities in Saudi Arabia and the UAE have long relied on draconian cybercrime and  counterterrorism  legislation to silence dissent and restrict freedom of expression online. Countless activists and peaceful critics have been  arrested , tried and  sentenced  for expressing critical opinions in online publications or on social media, including Facebook and X.  The  reports  further cite that the content allegedly violating cybercrime laws includes “reporting on regional geopolitical conflicts and security developments." Since the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran on 28 February 2026, Gulf governments have moved swiftly to tighten the information environment even further, controlling what their populations can see, say, and share about the attacks unfolding in their countries. Meta claims to conduct  human rights due diligence reviews  before complying with government requests. We ask Meta to disclose what that review looked like for ALQST's page (and other affected accounts), who conducted it, what standards were applied, and how the company concluded that restricting a human rights organisation at the request of a government that imprisons people for social media posts is compatible with its own stated commitments. Meanwhile, authorities in both countries exert near total control over online information, and routinely block websites and internet accounts that might be of public interest, such as the websites of  ALQST  (blocked in Saudi Arabia since 2015), the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (blocked in  Saudi Arabia  and  the UAE  since 2015) and others that might contain content critical of the government or that advocate for human rights and democracy in the country. In this highly repressive context, Meta has a heightened responsibility to uphold freedom of expression and protect human rights defenders, especially from “censorship demands from governments or their proxies” as Meta publicly states in its  human rights policy . Instead of preserving the free flow of information, Meta has further restricted access to it.  Ironically, Meta’s notifications state that the company conducted legal assessments beforehand and “took into account human rights implications.” Given the  well-documented pattern  of digital repression by Saudi and UAE authorities, such claims are difficult to reconcile. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights expect companies to assess whether government requests are consistent with international human rights standards before complying and to be transparent about how they reached their conclusions. The undersigned organisations therefore call on Meta to: