Are there reports of increased video takedowns on Facebook this year?

1. Big Numbers and a Clear Cleanup Narrative That Catches Attention

Meta’s public statements and contemporaneous coverage foreground large-scale takedowns and account deletions that suggest intensified enforcement this year: Meta reported removing roughly 10 million accounts impersonating creators and taking action against about 500,000 accounts for spammy behavior, and independent outlets highlighted a July action described as deleting 10 million Facebook accounts as part of a cleanup ^{[1] [3]}. These figures are presented as direct company actions and are recent (July 2025), creating a headline narrative that Meta is actively removing problematic accounts and content. The emphasis on numbers frames the year as one of proactive platform hygiene and signals to creators and users that enforcement activity is visible and large in scale ^{[1] [3]}.

2. Policy Shifts Targeting Reposted and Reused Creator Content

Meta simultaneously introduced policy and product changes aimed specifically at reused or stolen creator content, warning that creators who repeatedly repost others’ videos, photos or text could lose monetization access and face reduced distribution ^[2]. That guidance, reported in mid-July 2025, ties enforcement to creator economics and distribution algorithms rather than purely account suspension, indicating a policy toolkit beyond outright takedowns. The practical effect for creators is twofold: platforms can remove or downrank content and also impose financial penalties by excluding repeat offenders from monetization streams—an enforcement combination that can look like an increase in takedowns but also leverages non-removal penalties to change behavior ^[2].

3. Corporate Rhetoric About “More Speech” Complicates the Picture

In January 2025, Meta announced moderation changes under the banner of “More Speech and Fewer Mistakes,” signaling a shift toward reducing content removal and increasing tolerance for expression ^[4]. That corporate rhetoric could suggest fewer takedowns in principle, yet subsequent July actions and creator-specific crackdowns indicate that enforcement can intensify selectively even as global policy language emphasizes restraint. The coexistence of broader deregulatory framing and concentrated enforcement against impersonation, spam and reuse shows that policy intent and operational actions can diverge, producing both narratives—more speech and more removals—depending on the subset of content or accounts under discussion ^{[4] [1] [2]}.

4. Oversight Pressure and Human-Rights Warnings Point to Uneven Outcomes

The Meta Oversight Board criticized the company’s policy changes as hasty and insufficiently human-rights informed, warning of uneven consequences globally and highlighting troubling decisions like upholding some content that demeans trans women and girls ^{[5] [6]}. This external scrutiny suggests enforcement increases may not be evenly applied and may prioritize different content types or regions, creating perceptions of inconsistency. The Oversight Board’s findings from April 2025 point to a tension where firm enforcement in areas like impersonation and spam coexists with restraint or contested decisions on harassment and hate speech, complicating a simple “more takedowns” narrative ^{[5] [6]}.

5. User Complaints and Petition Activity Signal Perceived Rise in Suspensions

Independent reporting in July 2025 documented user pushback—over 25,000 people signed a petition complaining about account bans on Facebook and Instagram—which provides ground-level evidence that many users perceive an increase in suspensions or removals ^[7]. While these accounts do not always specify whether the action involved video takedowns specifically, the breadth of complaints about bans and suspensions reinforces the impression that enforcement has been more active and sometimes blunt. The user-led reaction highlights a gap between corporate metrics and individual experiences: large-scale removals can fuel a sense of overreach even if they target spam or impersonation, and petitions underscore public sensitivity to enforcement changes ^[7].

6. What the Reporting Omits and Why That Matters for Assessing “Video Takedowns”

Crucially, several of the cited items document account deletions, monetization penalties, or policy shifts without providing detailed, platform-wide metrics specifically for video takedowns ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Coverage about graphic videos spreading and user harms focuses on distribution rather than takedown frequency, and reports of account deletions imply but do not prove a proportional rise in video removals ^{[8] [3]}. The omission of explicit counts of removed videos versus removed accounts means the claim that “video takedowns increased” is supported indirectly by company actions and creator policy changes but lacks a dedicated, transparent metric isolating video removals from broader enforcement activity ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

7. Bottom Line: Evidence Points to More Enforcement, but the Scope for “Video Takedowns” Remains Partly Unmeasured

Synthesis of available reporting from January–September 2025 shows clear, recent company actions and policy changes that amount to heightened enforcement against impersonation, spam and reused creator content, and these moves are reported as occurring in mid-2025 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. However, oversight criticism and user petitions indicate uneven application and contested priorities ^{[5] [7]}. Because no source provides a comprehensive, time-series count of video-specific takedowns, the most accurate conclusion is that enforcement activity increased in ways that likely raised video removals for some categories, but the precise scale and uniformity of “increased video takedowns” is not fully quantified in the available reporting ^{[1] [2] [4] [5]}.