The math on Meta’s business is simple. Almost 98 cents of every dollar the company makes comes from advertising. That is the figure to hold in mind while considering why, on September 10, 2023, Meta deleted the Facebook profile of Al Jazeera Arabic presenter Tamer Almisshal.
The deletion happened one day after Al Jazeera published an investigation into Meta’s censorship of Palestinian content. The timing is the story. It is not a coincidence. It is a sequence of cause and effect that Meta has not explained.
Meta is not a small operation. It owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Threads. It sits in the same tier as Alphabet, Amazon, and Apple. Its advertising network is the engine. Content moderation is the valve. When a major news outlet publishes an investigation alleging that the valve is being turned against Palestinian voices, the valve gets turned again. Almisshal’s profile was the target.
This is how a company with near-total revenue dependence on ad buyers handles a challenge to its impartiality. It does not issue a statement. It does not debate the findings. It deletes the profile of the journalist who hosted the investigation. The message is not subtle. It is operational.
The investigation itself had struck a nerve. Exactly which nerve is the question. Meta’s moderation policies have been under fire from multiple directions for years. Some critics say the company is too aggressive in removing content. Others say it is not aggressive enough against hate speech and misinformation. The Al Jazeera report added a specific charge: that Meta systematically suppresses Palestinian content. The company’s response was to delete the reporter.
Consider the power dynamic. Al Jazeera Arabic is a major broadcaster. Tamer Almisshal is a known presenter. Meta deleted his profile anyway. If a journalist with that platform can be removed without explanation, the threshold for what happens to smaller voices is not hard to guess. The criteria Meta uses to decide what stays and what goes remain opaque. The company has not clarified them in this case.
The deletion raises a practical question for anyone who relies on Meta’s platforms for news distribution. If your reporting criticizes the company, your account is at risk. That is not a hypothetical. It happened. The day after the investigation aired, the profile was gone.
Meta’s size gives it cover. It is one of the largest tech companies in the world. It can absorb criticism. It can delete a profile and wait for the news cycle to move on. The advertising revenue keeps flowing. The 97.8 percent figure does not change because one journalist loses his Facebook page.
But the pattern is visible now. An investigation into censorship. A deletion. No explanation. The company’s moderation policies have long been debated. This incident makes the debate concrete. It is not about abstract terms of service. It is about a specific action taken against a specific person at a specific time. The action followed the investigation. That is the fact that matters.
