'First dumb AI': Meta AI blocks Indian PM Modi's video in his own country, allows abuse ads and deletes livelihoods without explanation

Meta is facing simultaneous pressure from India's ruling party, its IT ministry, and its own users — and the legal shield that lets it operate in the country is now openly in question.

‘Who Gave Meta The Authority?’

Priti Gandhi, the BJP's IT and social media national in-charge for the party's seven Morchas and an official spokesperson for Maharashtra BJP, publicly confronted the company after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Facebook post was restricted for users in India.

‘The Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy uploads his first direct selfie video to connect with India's youth… and Facebook restricts it???' she wrote, tagging Meta directly. ‘Who gave Meta the authority to decide what millions of Indians should or should not see??? This isn’t just content moderation. It raises serious questions about your political bias, transparency & accountability. Respond!!!'

The post in question — ‘More strict actions against paper leaks to come in tomorrow’s Cabinet!' — carries a notice reading: ‘The attached media isn’t available in your region due to a legal request.' No authority is named. No law is cited. No reason is given. The same message, on Instagram, set a world record with 303 million views in 24 hours, overtaking the previous mark held by YouTuber IShowSpeed.

The Summons Meta Is Already Facing

The blocking controversy lands while Meta is already answering to the Indian government on a far graver matter.

Following a BBC Eye investigation published July 3, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology summoned Meta officials over paid advertisements on Instagram promoting child sexual abuse material in India. A BBC test account was reportedly served around 30 distinct paid ads using explicit search terms, redirecting users to Telegram channels selling illegal material for as little as ₹99.

Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw directed ministry officials to seek an explanation from the company. MeitY ordered Instagram to disable all such advertisements and content, and demanded a detailed response within seven days — warning that failure to comply could threaten Meta's safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act.

That protection is the legal foundation of Meta's presence in India. Section 79 exempts platforms from liability for content posted by users, but only while they meet due diligence obligations under the IT Rules. Without it, Meta becomes directly liable for what appears on its platforms in its largest market by user base.

The Businesses Already Paying The Price

Beneath the political confrontation sits a longer-running grievance: Meta's automated enforcement has been removing genuine accounts and businesses at scale.

Meta has stated it removed more than 10 million accounts in a crackdown it says targeted bots, spam and fake engagement. But a New York Times investigation published this month documented users whose livelihoods vanished overnight, accounts disabled under broad categories such as ‘fraud and deception,’ with no specific violating post identified, and appeals rejected within days as final.

Meta's own Oversight Board reached similar conclusions in its first ruling on disabled accounts, identifying systemic concerns around due process, proportionality and transparency, and recommending that Meta disclose what role AI plays in its enforcement decisions. The Board also found that Meta Verified , the paid subscription businesses buy specifically for support, failed to provide meaningful assistance to users with disabled accounts.

The Question Now On The Table

Meta now faces, at once: a ruling-party office-bearer demanding a public explanation, an IT ministry summons over child abuse advertising, an explicit warning about its safe harbour status, and a documented record of destroying legitimate businesses through automated enforcement it will not explain.

Meta has not answered Priti Gandhi's questions. It has not disclosed who requested the restriction on the Prime Minister's post, under what provision, or why it was applied on one of its platforms and not the other. Until it does, the question being asked in India is no longer whether Meta made a mistake — it is what authority Meta holds in the country at all, and on whose permission.