Extremist Content and Dangerous Organisations on Social Media – Know Your Rights

Content promoting terrorist organisations, glorifying mass violence or inciting others to commit acts of extremism is prohibited on every major social media platform. Yet enforcement in this area produces some of the most significant moderation errors in either direction: content that genuinely promotes violence remains up, while counter-extremism research, journalism, historical documentation and the voices of communities targeted by extremist groups are removed.

Since the Digital Services Act (DSA) came into force, users can challenge unfair moderation decisions through a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body. User Rights is the first such body certified under Article 21 DSA in Europe for Social Media, certified by the German Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur). The procedure is free of charge for users, as the costs are borne by the platform. You do not need to complete the platform's internal complaint procedure before turning to User Rights. All we require is proof that you submitted a report or filed an internal appeal through the platform's complaint mechanism. Cases are currently reviewed for platform actions on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, X, LinkedIn, Snapchat and Pinterest. Our assessments are based on platform policies and if applicable, EU and national law. Currently, User Rights is certified for German and Italian Law.

What Counts as Extremist Content and Dangerous Organisations?

Platform policies in this area cover two broad categories. The first is organisations: terrorist groups, violent extremist movements, hate groups, militias operating outside state authority, and other entities designated as dangerous by platforms or governments. The second is content: material that promotes, glorifies or celebrates such organisations or their acts, recruits on their behalf, or facilitates their activities.

What platforms do not prohibit, and what is frequently removed by mistake, is content that discusses, documents, analyses or condemns extremism. A journalist reporting on a terrorist attack, a researcher studying radicalisation, a survivor sharing their experience, or an educator teaching about the Holocaust usually constitutes legitimate speech. Automated systems tend to classify what content depicts, not why it was posted, so condemnation and glorification look alike to the system. The consequences of this are borne by the user, as accounts are suspended, and years of archived work can disappear along with the professional standing built on it.

Example: A human rights researcher posts a video on Instagram documenting propaganda from a designated extremist group, clearly labelled as evidence of the group's activity and shared in a condemnatory context. The post is removed and the account restricted. The same group's content, posted without critical framing, remains accessible. This inconsistent enforcement is a reviewable moderation decision.

Distinction: Content that promotes violence against specific individuals or groups may additionally fall under platform policies on Hate Speech or Online Threats and Violent Speech. Content from organisations involved in conflict situations raises particular questions about the line between political speech and incitement. Platforms draw that line differently depending on the region, the language and which designation list they are applying.

Common situations addressed by platform policies

Accounts or content promoting designated terrorist organisations or violent extremist movements
Content glorifying or celebrating acts of terrorism, mass violence or genocide
Recruitment material or content facilitating the activities of dangerous organisations
Symbols, insignia or slogans of designated terrorist or extremist groups
Counter-extremism research, journalism or documentary content wrongly removed as extremist
Historical or educational content about extremism flagged by automated systems
News reporting on terrorist incidents removed for showing extremist imagery in context
Content by communities targeted by extremist groups, wrongly classified as extremist
Anti-fascist or anti-radicalisation content removed under overbroad enforcement

Over-removal and the counter-speech problem

Example: Documented research, such as investigations by Human Rights Watch and the Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media (7amleh), shows that Arabic-language content and content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is disproportionately removed or reach-restricted under extremism policies. Users from communities historically targeted by extremist movements report similar patterns. Platforms' automated systems are trained on data that reflects these imbalances.

If your content was removed and you believe it was engaging with extremism critically rather than promoting it, the platform's own policy – which explicitly protects counter-speech, educational content and journalism – may have been misapplied. This is precisely the kind of inconsistent enforcement that User Rights can review.

Extremism and Dangerous Organisation Policies on Social Media Platforms

All platforms covered by User Rights are subject to the DSA, which requires them to give reasons for moderation decisions and to cooperate with certified dispute settlement bodies. Each platform maintains similar prohibitions. What differs is how each platform decides which organisations are covered, and what it permits by way of reporting, research and condemnation. Wrongful removals in this category usually originate in an exception the platform failed to apply, not in the prohibition itself.

Meta: Instagram and Facebook

Meta's Dangerous Organisations and Individuals policy prohibits content that glorifies, supports or represents terrorist organisations, violent extremist groups, hate groups and certain militias. Meta designates entities itself alongside government lists. Exceptions apply to reporting, condemnation and neutral discussion, but where intent is ambiguous the default is removal, which is why analytical and journalistic posts are caught often.

Important: Meta's policy distinguishes between an organisation being 'designated' at different tiers with different levels of content restriction. The specific tier determines what content is prohibited. If Meta's dismissal notification does not specify which tier applies, this lack of reasoning is itself a potential violation of Art. 17 DSA, and consequently grounds for a User Rights submission.

TikTok

TikTok's Community Guidelines on Violent and Hateful Organisations and Individuals prohibit content that promotes, glorifies or facilitates terrorism, extremism or mass violence, and accounts operated by designated terrorist or extremist organisations. TikTok's policy has an exception for documentary or educational content that discusses, condemns or raises awareness of extremism and journalistic content that discusses and criticises violent or hateful actors, as long as there is no promotion of violence. Enforcement is often a reach restriction rather than a removal, and that is equally a reviewable moderation measure.

LinkedIn's Professional Community Policies prohibit content that promotes, glorifies or incites violence, terrorism or extremist organisations. LinkedIn makes an exception for content that is educational or newsworthy, if the newsworthiness outweighs the risk of harm. Graphic or disturbing newsworthy content may be displayed on the platform with a warning screen. Given LinkedIn's professional context, cases in this category can involve security researchers, policy professionals or journalists whose work engages with extremism analytically. Their content is likely to be flagged under overbroad automated enforcement.

Pinterest's Community Guidelines prohibit content that promotes or glorifies violent extremism, terrorism or dangerous organisations. Pinterest's visual format means that symbols, flags or insignia associated with extremist groups are a common focus of enforcement, which is where educational and historical content may be treated as promotional incorrectly. Pinterest may limit distribution rather than remove, and both outcomes are reviewable.

YouTube

YouTube's Violent Extremist and Criminal Organisations policy prohibits content praising, promoting or aiding such organisations, which may not use the platform for any purpose. Exceptions exist for educational, documentary, scientific and artistic content, but at a raised threshold: the context must be visible in the video's imagery or audio, not in the title or description, and the creator's non-promotional aim must be clear to the viewer. Unmodified reuploads of extremist material and perpetrator-filmed footage are excluded entirely, and qualifying content may still be age-restricted rather than fully restored. For journalists and researchers the practical point is simple: context stated only in the description will not save the video.

X

X's Violent and Hateful Entities policy prohibits terrorist organisations, violent extremist groups and individuals who affiliate with or promote their activities. Violent entities are defined as those deliberately targeting people or essential infrastructure with physical violence or violent rhetoric; hateful entities as those systematically promoting hateful conduct against a protected category. Discussion for education, documentary, or newsworthy purposes is expressly permitted. X's policy features a second exception for entities which have renounced violence, those engaged in a peace process, and state or governmental entities, including those with elected representatives, so state and non-state violence are treated differently by policy design. X's policy on Perpetrators of Violent Attacks permanently suspends accounts belonging to attack perpetrators and removes manifestos and other perpetrator-created content.

Snapchat

Snapchat's Community Guidelines on Hateful Content, Terrorism and Violent Extremism prohibit any use of Snapchat to further the objectives of terrorist organisations, violent extremists or hate groups, along with content that glorifies, praises, supports or advocates for terrorism, violent extremism or hate, and recruitment for such organisations. Snapchat designates entities by reference to credible third-party experts rather than government lists alone. Its guidelines set out no documentary or journalistic exception in the terms the other platforms use. Because Snapchat content is largely ephemeral, evidence is the practical problem here: Please screenshot the content before it expires.

What is outside User Rights' scope of review

The policies on violent extremism and dangerous organisations are among the broadest in scope for User Rights review. The following formats of content unfortunately falls outside our scope of review regardless:

Direct messages: User Rights does not review the content of direct messages. If extremist content or recruitment material was shared exclusively via DMs, the moderation of those messages is not reviewable. Report the account and any publicly visible content.

Coordinated inauthentic behaviour: Where platforms take action against networks of fake accounts used to amplify extremist content, the network takedown itself – as a behaviour-based measure – is outside User Rights' scope. However, decisions about the specific content those accounts posted remain reviewable.

Note: User Rights does not review moderation actions that were taken more than six months ago.

A full overview is available on the scope of review page.

What Can You Do if You Are Affected?

There are two situations in which User Rights can help: you reported extremist content and the platform did not act consistently with its own policy, or your own legitimate content was wrongly removed or restricted as extremist.

Scenario A: You reported extremist content and the platform did not act

Preserve evidence before reporting: Screenshot the content with the account name, URL, date and time. Capture specific posts, symbols, recruitment language or references to designated organisations. Once a report is filed, content may be removed or become inaccessible. Your own record is important and greatly aids our decision-making.
Report to the platform: Use the in-built reporting function and select the most specific category available – terrorism, violent extremism or dangerous organisations. Keep a record of any reference number or confirmation you receive.
Appeal if dismissed: If the platform dismisses your report, use the appeal mechanism via the help centre or the dismissal notification. Note the reason cited and keep a record of the response. Please note: You do not have to wait for a response to file a case with User Rights, it is sufficient that a reasonable waiting period of seven days expired.
Submit to User Rights: If the platform's inaction was inconsistent with its own extremism or dangerous organisations policy, submit a complaint. Where you reported the content under one of the platform's policies, we review whether the decision was consistent with any policies of the platform within the scope of User Rights.

Scenario B: Your legitimate content was wrongly removed or restricted as extremist

Check the reason: Under Art. 17 DSA platforms must give a specific reason for every moderation action. Identify which policy was cited and assess whether it actually applies to your content. If your content was journalistic, educational, research-based, counter-speech or artistic, document clearly how it falls within the platform's stated exceptions.
Appeal internally: Use the platform's appeal mechanism. Provide context that makes the nature and purpose of your content clear: for example, your professional role as a journalist or researcher, the educational or artistic purpose of the content, or the condemnatory framing in which extremist material was referenced. You do not have to wait for a response by the platform after seven days from the date of your internal complaint. Please always provide evidence of your internal complaint case when you submit a case with User Rights.
Submit to User Rights: If the internal appeal was unsuccessful or unanswered, submit your case. User Rights will assess whether the removal was consistent with the platform's own policy, including its stated exceptions for journalism, education and counter-speech.

Note: User Rights does not review content shared exclusively in direct messages. A full overview is available on the scope of review page.

Did a platform fail to act on content promoting a terrorist organisation or violent extremist movement? Or was your counter-extremism research, journalism or educational content wrongly removed? Submit your case to User Rights. Our certified dispute settlement procedure is free of charge for users.

Submit your case here →

Did a platform fail to act on content promoting a terrorist organisation or violent extremist movement?

Or was your counter-extremism research, journalism or educational content wrongly removed? Submit your case to User Rights. Our certified dispute settlement procedure is free of charge for users.

SUBMIT A CASE

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Yes. Content related to ongoing conflicts, including content about designated organisations involved in those conflicts, is subject to the same platform policies and the same DSA framework as any other content. If a platform removed your content about a conflict situation without applying its stated exceptions for journalism, education or counter-speech, that decision is reviewable. User Rights assesses whether the platform applied its own policy correctly, not the political merits of the content.

Educational and historical content about extremism, including Holocaust documentation and analysis of historical atrocities, is explicitly protected under the policies of all platforms covered by User Rights. If such content was removed, the removal was inconsistent with the platform's stated exceptions and is reviewable. Document clearly the educational or historical purpose of the content.

All platforms covered by User Rights explicitly exempt journalistic, educational and research content from their extremism policies. If your professional content was removed despite falling within these exceptions, this is precisely the kind of moderation error that User Rights can review. Include your professional context and the purpose of the content in your submission.

Under Art. 17 DSA platforms are required to give a specific reason for every moderation action. A generic notification that cites a policy category without referencing a precise policy title or which specific aspect of the policy applies is itself a potential violation of this obligation. Submit your case to User Rights, as the lack of adequate reasoning is relevant to the review.

Yes. Account-level actions – suspensions, restrictions or permanent bans – based on extremism or dangerous organisations policies are subject to the same review as content-level decisions. The platform must give a reason for the account action under Art. 17 DSA, and that reason must be consistent with its own policy.

No. You do not need to go through the entire platform's internal complaint process under Art. 20 DSA. Before submitting a case with User Rights, you only need proof of your submission with the platform's internal complaint process. If the platform does not respond to your complaint within a reasonable waiting period (seven days), you can submit a case with User Rights.

No. User Rights accepts cases from users across the EU regardless of country of residence. The DSA applies uniformly across the EU and grants equal rights to all users on covered platforms.

The procedure is free of charge for users. The platform bears the costs of the dispute settlement process.

No. When you report content you believe breaches a platform's rules, we assess it against all of the platform's policies, not only the one you cited. If several apply, the decision will name each of them. If only one applies, the decision names that one. You do not need to identify the correct policy for your case to be reviewed properly.

The decisions of User Rights are formally non-binding. However, platforms are required under the DSA to cooperate with certified dispute settlement bodies in good faith and to implement decisions in practice. Non-compliance can be escalated to the competent Digital Services Coordinator.