Share this post

Over the past year, marginalised communities, including LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC communities, have reported a growing wave of account suspensions, removals and restrictions from Meta’s moderation systems.

New data suggests reported cases of censorship are only increasing.

Repro Uncensored alone has now verified 70 cases of reported censorship affecting Australian accounts, with almost all occurring in 2026. Around the world, the organisation has recorded a steep rise in verified cases too, increasing from 50 reports in December to more than 600 today.

These numbers likely don’t scratch the surface, as Repro’s database only captures cases reported to the organisation.

“Australia has emerged as one of the countries most affected by the current wave of Big Tech censorship,” Repro Uncensored founder and executive director Martha Dimitratou told QNews.

“From our experience, [Australian cases are] among the most difficult and lengthy to reinstate, if we receive a response at all.”

At this point, as the tally continues to rise, as more businesses and creators lose access to work, as vital communication is suppressed, the question needs to be asked: when private corporations control what is essentially modern-day public infrastructure, who is responsible for regulating it?

Public health information access

Bur first, to understand what I mean by public infrastructure, look no further than each and every person’s access to essential health information.

A newly released project from Swinburne University and the National Association of People with HIV Australia (NAPWHA) called Not Safe for Health has examined the challenges facing community-based health organisations using digital platforms, particularly organisations working in HIV prevention, education and support.

NAPWHA says its organisations have experienced content suppression, account suspensions and restrictions on paid advertising, while also facing hateful comments and targeted abuse on their platforms.

The result is a contradiction: organisations working to provide essential health information are being restricted, while harmful misinformation and abuse can remain.

Professor Kath Albury from Swinburne University said social media platforms were once places where communities could build connection, but their business models had shifted.

“It used to be the case that you could build community and social connection on social media. But platforms have built profits on promoting social conflict, not supporting the public interest.”

The report found that dominant platforms now hold a “virtual oligopoly” over digital communication, making it increasingly difficult for community organisations to simply leave.

For LGBTQIA+ communities, that reality is particularly significant.

Social media is not just where people share photos or announcements. It is where people find health information, discover support services, organise campaigns, build communities and preserve cultural histories.

When those accounts disappear, communities lose infrastructure.

Related content:

• Meta shuts down five gay and queer venue social accounts without notice
• Meta targets queer, BIPOC and sex positive accounts with false ‘human exploitation’ claims
• Meta faces legal challenge over mass removal of queer Instagram accounts

The three drivers of Meta’s targeting

Repro Uncensored share how their research points to the three “interconnected drivers” causing the growing wave of account removals.

Automated moderation systems

Platforms like Meta rely on artificial intelligence to detect potential policy violations.

These AI moderators seem to heavily target content around sexual health and expression, LGBTQIA+ events, queer nightlife, advocacy or community support, with these posts incorrectly labelled as violating policies around adult content, exploitation or solicitation.

Coordinated reporting campaigns

There have been numerous examples of creators, community organisations and businesses being targeted by anti-rights groups who urge followers to mass-report lawful content, creating a system where fraudulent complaints trigger platform action.

This is doubly concerning when, after accounts are removed, the victim of targeting is automatically perceived as guilty and is unable to retrieve their account/s.

Lack of transparency

It is rare for account holders to know what specific content allegedly breached policies or how they can meaningfully challenge it.

Dimitratou said this lack of accountability has become one of the biggest barriers facing affected communities.

“Organisations are rarely told exactly what content allegedly violated Meta’s policies, why the decision was made, whether it resulted from automated moderation or coordinated mass reporting, or how they can effectively challenge it,” Dimitratou says. 

For many, accounts can only be recovered after journalists, lawyers, politicians or organisations like Repro intervene on their behalf.

As Dimitratou argues, access to fundamental communication channels should not depend on whether an organisation can attract enough public attention.

Australia’s digital rights gap, what can be done?

Australia has a gap in it’s anti-discrimination and digital rights protections.

Laws like the federal Sex Discrimination Act and state-based anti-discrimination legislation weren’t designed for a world where a global private company can remove a people’s primary communication avenue overnight.

When Meta removes an account, Australians currently have such limited options, there is rarely anything that can be done.

Tom Sulston, Head of Policy at Digital Rights Watch, said the problem highlights the broader power imbalance between technology companies and the communities that rely on them.

“That they do it [censor user], and frequently get away with it, demonstrates the problems inherent with Big Tech’s control of the platforms we depend on for our communications.”

“We urgently need governments and regulators to step in, and ensure that Australians aren’t excommunicated by social media platforms for offending American government sensibilities with their posts.”

There are no specific laws in place to deter big tech from their behaviour, nor its there a dedicated independent body with the power to investigate patterns of censorship, require transparency from platforms, or provide meaningful avenues for appeal.

This has led advocates to propose a few different options:

1. Stronger regulation of digital platforms
2. The creation of a Digital Platforms Ombudsman
3. Better enforcement of exisiting discrimination laws.

A Digital Platforms Ombudsman: what could that do?

A Digital Platforms Ombudsman would provide an independent pathway for users and organisations who believe they have been unfairly impacted by a platform’s decision.

Instead of relying on Meta’s internal appeals process, Australians would take their complaints to an external body who would help resolve the case.

The Australian Greens have joined calls for such a model, arguing platforms currently hold too much “unchecked power”.

Repro Uncensored has warned that any Australian model would need the authority to identify systemic patterns, require platforms to cooperate and impose consequences when companies repeatedly fail to meet their obligations.

This pathway is potentially closer than it appears.

The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman is calling for its role to expand to include digital platforms, recognising that online services increasingly affect Australians’ everyday lives.

“Right now, when things go wrong online people don’t have anywhere to turn for help. Australians are often left stranded, stuck in a chatbot loop and unable to talk to a real human to get help,” Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert told QNews.

“Big tech companies have the resources to help people resolve issues on their platforms, but instead consumers are falling through the cracks and left helpless, frustrated and out of pocket.

“We want to see big tech companies held accountable and to the same standards as telcos.  It’s why we’re calling for the TIO to handle digital platform complaints as well as telco, so people have access to independent and free help when they need it.”

Europe’s Digital Services Act: how to regulate Big Tech 

Another option implemented in Europe is a broader regulatory framework called the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

Introduced in 2022 and becoming fully applicable in 2024, the DSA is one of the world’s “most significant attempts” to regulate Big Tech because it recognises their role in accessing information, participating in public debate and connecting communities.

The DSA introduces obligations including:

• transparency around content removals with explanations when content or accounts are removed, and
• meaningful appeal processes.

But has it worked for Europe?

“For the first time, it establishes clear obligations around transparency, due process, risk assessments, and meaningful systems of redress when platforms moderate content or suspend accounts,” Dimitratou told QNews.

“Our legal class action in the Netherlands is a strong example of how the DSA can be used to hold Big Tech accountable and seek meaningful sanctions where companies fail to comply with European law.”

The case she is referring to argues that Meta failed to meet its obligations under the legislation by not providing meaningful explanations or effective opportunities for redress in cases including The Queer Agenda.

Dimitratou notes that the the DSA should be seen as “the beginning of accountability, not the end of it”.

“It provides a blueprint for democracies around the world seeking to reclaim oversight over the digital public sphere. The legislation exists. The next challenge is ensuring that governments are willing to enforce it.”

We know the rapid growth of digital platforms has exposed gaps between existing protections and the reality of modern communication.

So much so that the federal government has committed to developing a Digital Duty of Care framework for online services, following a recommendation from the Statutory Review of the Online Safety Act 2021.

The proposed framework would mean that online services need to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable online harms experienced by Australians.

But would these measures also address what happens when platforms themselves restrict lawful communication or remove accounts without any clear explanations?

And, could the addition of a DSA-style framework help address the holes that remain?

What now?

We at QNews will continue to report on Meta’s censorship and support our community. Repro Uncensored will continue to campaign globally and both  document cases and work with account holders in Australia to help get their accounts back.

But for marginalised folk here, the ominous shadow of uncertainty will remain for now.

Meanwhile, the Australian government will either do little, or they will finally take steps to ensure that the platforms millions rely on every day are held to appropriate standards of transparency, fairness and responsibility.

One thing is for certain, the future of digital rights and online public infrastructure cannot be left in the hands of global private corporations.

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, and community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.