Content removed from a platform: what your rights are in Israel

Service page: Defamation lawyer: protecting your reputation.

Why does a platform remove a post, and what can you do about a wrongful removal?

You uploaded a photo, a post or a video, and suddenly it disappeared. No warning. No explanation. Or worse: you got a notice that you broke the “community standards”, but it is not clear what exactly you did.

Content moderation, meaning the decision of platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, YouTube and Instagram on what to remove and what to leave up, works in three ways: automatic algorithms (often wrong), human moderators (overloaded and liable to make mistakes), and complaints from other users. Each method can make mistakes. And when it does, who is responsible?

What does the law say in Israel?

Israel does not yet have a dedicated “platforms law” like the European DSA. But that does not mean there is no law. Several existing laws impose duties on platforms and protect the user:

• Communications (Telecommunications and Broadcasting) Law, 5742-1982: although it predates the digital era, it affects certain aspects of transmitting content. Section 30 of the Law creates a criminal offense of using a telecommunications facility or terminal equipment in a way that is likely to unlawfully harm, frighten, harass or annoy (three years’ imprisonment), and section 30A regulates sending an advertising message (commercial message). The Communications Law does not impose a general moderation duty on internet service providers: platform liability in Israel is examined through the Prohibition of Defamation Law and the general law of torts.
• Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965: the liability of the original publisher is set in the Law; the liability of the platform itself is not expressly regulated in it, and is examined in case law and in the law of torts, among other things by what the platform knew about the content and how it responded after it learned of it. The Supreme Court held that without legislation there is no power to order a provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous user (application for leave to appeal, LCA 4447/07 Mor v. Barak I.T.C.).
• Laws on consumer protection and privacy: anyone who asks for personal information in order to process it in a database must say whether there is a duty to provide it, for what purpose, and to whom it will be passed (section 11 of the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981); a person has the right to inspect information about them (section 13) and to ask for information that is not correct, complete, clear or up to date to be corrected or deleted (section 14), but there is no general right to have all the information deleted.

A major difference from abroad: in the United States, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives platforms broad immunity from liability for content that users published. In Israel there is no such immunity. A platform that knew about harmful content and did not act can be liable.

Types of content that call for removal

Platforms usually remove the following types of content:

• Violence and graphic material: images or video of severe violence, blood or serious injuries
• Sexual exploitation of minors: any material that uses minors in a sexual context
• Harassment and abuse: harassment, threats or abuse directed at particular people, including on grounds of religion, sex or origin
• Misleading information and fakes: content that deliberately spreads false information to manipulate opinion (especially in the context of elections or health)
• Copyright infringement: content that uses other people’s intellectual property without permission
• Insults: posts that insult a person or harm their dignity
• Hate speech: material that promotes theories of superiority based on religion, ethnicity, color or identity

The real challenge is the “gray areas”: political criticism, dark humor, journalistic documentation of violence, research discussion of sensitive subjects. An algorithm does not understand context. And sometimes a tired human moderator does not understand it either. The result: legitimate content is removed, and harmful content stays up.

Appeal policies: what platforms provide, and what the DSA requires in Europe

Platforms such as Meta and X (formerly Twitter) have published “Community Standards” and “Rules” that describe what is allowed and what is not. On paper, this is a clear framework. In practice, enforcement is arbitrary, differs between languages, and sometimes differs between users.

In Israel there is no express legal duty to have an appeal process, but a fair process, as defined for example in the European DSA, includes:

• Clear notice: why exactly the content was removed, and which law or policy it broke
• A fair process: human review of the appeal, at least in serious cases
• Speed: an answer to the appeal within a reasonable time, not after weeks
• Transparency: publishing data on how much content was removed and why, at least once a year

In Israel these requirements are not imposed by an express law, but large platforms apply similar policies because of international pressure and lawsuits around the world. In practice, the expectation of a fair appeal process is already accepted.

Why algorithms get it wrong, and what that means for you

Most large platforms filter content automatically. It is fast, it is cheap, and it makes mistakes.

The three main problems:

• False positives: an image of violence from a film, a news report on a disaster: removed because the algorithm does not understand context.
• Bias: an algorithm trained on biased data will remove content of certain groups more often.
• Cultural blindness: Israeli humor, sarcasm, quoted language: an algorithm does not understand them. It looks for keywords.

Meta, YouTube and TikTok still employ human moderators, but they are overloaded, and in many cases the algorithm’s decision stays unreviewed.

Freedom of expression versus protecting users: the real dilemma

One of the hardest challenges of content moderation is balancing the protection of users against freedom of expression. Where does legitimate expression end and harassment begin? Is criticism of government policy “misleading information”?

On the one hand, platforms must protect users from harassment, hate and dangerous content. On the other hand, censorship that is too broad suppresses legitimate discussion. And in Israel, political and security discussion sometimes falls right on that line.

Another problem: inconsistency. Platforms do not apply their rules equally. Identical content may be removed from an anonymous user and stay up for a public figure, and in Israel there is documentation of this.

When can you sue a platform?

Three main routes to a claim:

• For wrongful removal: a user sues because their legitimate content was removed by mistake
• For failure to remove: a person harmed by defamation argues that the platform did not remove the harmful content after it learned of it
• For failure to meet legal requirements: a government argues that a platform did not follow its regulatory requirements

In Israel, unlike the United States, platforms do not enjoy broad immunity. If a platform knew about content that breaks the law and did not act, it can be liable. And the other way around: arbitrary removal of content, contrary to the terms of use, may be treated as a breach of the contract between the user and the platform.

In Europe, the DSA (Digital Services Act) requires large platforms to report periodically on their moderation policies, to have a fair appeal process, and to publish data on the scope of removals. The DSA applies to services offered to users in the European Union, and does not give direct rights to users in Israel.

Your content was removed? Here is what you are entitled to

Without an express Israeli law, what is available to you is set mainly by the terms of use and the platform’s policy, and in Europe also by the DSA:

• The right to know: the right to understand why exactly the content was removed, and which rule the platform says was broken
• The right to appeal: the right to ask for a human review of the decision
• The right to reinstatement: in some cases, the right to have the content restored if the decision was reversed
• Going to an outside body: Meta has an independent “Oversight Board” that hears some of the appeals
• The right to transparency: the right to know general statistics on how a platform handles moderation: how much content was removed, on what grounds, and what percentage of appeals succeeded

In practice, the cost of a claim against a large platform in Israel is high compared with the benefit in most cases. The most effective route: filing a reasoned appeal, keeping a record of all the correspondence, and in extreme cases, contacting the Privacy Protection Authority or a lawyer.

Your content was removed? Here is what to do, step by step

Content removal feels like hitting a wall. But there is a process, and in some cases it works.

Step 1, take a screenshot right away: before the content is deleted completely and before you respond, take a screenshot of the removal notice with a timestamp. This is the basis for any appeal.

Step 2, file an appeal through the official interface: the large platforms (Meta, YouTube, TikTok) offer an appeal process, and in the European Union they are required to do so under the DSA. Look for “Request review” or “Appeal”. Write the appeal specifically: not “this is unfair” but “this content is [political criticism / journalistic documentation / a quotation for discussion] and does not break rule X”.

Step 3, escalate if needed: Meta has an “Oversight Board”, an independent outside body that can hear appeals in serious cases. Applying there takes time, but it creates an official record.

Step 4, document inconsistency: if there is similar content by other users that was not removed, take screenshots of it too. Inconsistency in applying the rules is an important argument in a civil claim against a platform.

When to get help from a lawyer: when the content is connected to business activity, when the account itself was blocked (not just a single post), or when there is a repeated pattern of removals that harms a real reputation.