SFLC.in strongly condemns the restriction of its Instagram Post discussing the censorship faced by digital fact-checking organisation Alt News, as well as the subsequent takedown of an Instagram Story in which SFLC.in shared Scroll’s report on the matter.
SFLC.in on 17th September 2026 had published a post highlighting the takedowns faced by Alt News in relation to its reporting on the Chauhaan film teaser. Alt News on 19th August 2026 had published a report on the content takedown they had faced, which was as follows. An Instagram post by Alt News based on the analysis of the teaser of the movie ‘Chauhaan’ was restricted by Instagram. A subsequent version was also removed, while a third version, after references to Hizbul Mujahideen militant “Burhan Wani” were removed, was allowed to remain online. Alt News also stated that search results for “Burhan Wani” on Instagram yielded no results and instead showed a message that said “these search terms may be associated with socially sensitive content”.
SFLC.in has been actively monitoring content takedowns through its Free Speech Tracker and had written extensively about the restrictions faced by Alt News and made a social media post discussing these particular instances to highlight the growing use of opaque content moderation systems on platforms and the chilling effect such systems can have on journalism and public-interest speech. The Post specifically noted that such censorship can operate even without a formal government order, and that journalists may begin self-censoring if they believe that certain subjects, words or images could trigger restrictions.
Instagram subsequently restricted SFLC.in’s posts in India. The notification stated that the content was restricted through “automated systems implemented under legal requirements.” The matter became even more concerning when Scroll reported on the restrictions faced by SFLC.in and Alt News in a post on Instagram. When SFLC.in shared Scroll’s report on the matter through an Instagram Story on its public handle- the Story was also taken down by Instagram through the use of automated systems.
SFLC.in is deeply concerned about the increasing reliance on automated systems for implementing content restrictions and legal compliance requirements. The lack of clarity around this notification further adds to the concern. Since the content has been taken down by automated systems it is unclear whether the restriction stems from a specific legal request or order issued to Meta, or whether Meta has restricted the content suo motu through its automated systems as part of its compliance with the due-diligence requirements under the Information Technology Rules, 2021. SFLC.in has not been provided with sufficient information to determine the source of the restriction, the specific legal basis for it, or the process through which the decision can be challenged.
SFLC.in emphasises that journalists and news outlets are facing systemic suppression due to over-automated content moderation systems that lack context for investigative reporting, public interest documentation, and critical commentary. By conflating legitimate reporting on sensitive or controversial issues with violations of Community Standards or legal requirements through automated moderation, Meta effectively silences public-interest journalism without human oversight. This opaque suppression undermines press freedom, as well as the public’s right to reliable information, and leaves users without timely recourse to contest improper takedowns.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the official Grievance Officer intake form for reporting does not provide a method to report the takedown of content, either for violations of Meta Community Standards, Terms of Service, or through “automated systems implemented under legal requirements”. The response from the Meta AI support assistant instead asks users to physically send an email to the resident Grievance Officer, creating an entirely separate standard for reporting content takedown as opposed to other grievances. As per the Meta platforms the email available on the website can only be used to enquire about the grievance redressal mechanism and not to file a Grievance Office report. This not only creates excessive additional friction for users, but in the case of news reporting, effectively silences journalists and curbs the spread of information for significant periods of time. This also creates a structural barrier to access further remedies such as approaching the Grievance Appellate Committee, which mandatorily requires a Grievance Officer report to be filed prior to filing an appeal.
SFLC.in calls upon Meta to restore SFLC.in’s post with immediate effect and provide a clear explanation of the legal basis for the takedown. Meta must also ensure meaningful human oversight for restrictions and provide users with an effective and timely mechanism to challenge erroneous takedown especially if done by automated systems. SFLC.in further calls upon the Government to provide greater transparency about the legal and policy basis for content restrictions and to clarify whether restrictions were imposed pursuant to government or law-enforcement requests or through Meta’s own systems. The Government should also ensure that the users are provided with meaningful, accessible and timely avenues to contest takedowns.
