Meta’s uneven cannabis content moderation stifles legal industry voices while allowing sensational sex and violence to thrive online.
Meta’s platforms (Facebook, Instagram and Threads) have long promised openness, yet in practice they enforce a strict taboo on cannabis content. Recent changes to Meta’s community standards aimed to “allow more speech” on contentious topics. However, cannabis content remains heavily policed. Searches for “marijuana” or “cannabis” on Facebook still return no results, with a prompt to “report the sale of drugs.” In effect, Meta’s cannabis content moderation policy treats medical, advocacy or regulatory posts as if they violated drug-sales rules. This contrasts sharply with how sexual or violent content is handled: while Meta does remove explicit sexual exploitation or extremist violence, many non-illegal examples of sexual or violent imagery circulate broadly. In other words, posts about consenting adult products or mainstream media violence may escape censure, even as benign cannabis posts vanish.
This double standard matters. The regulated cannabis industry in the U.S. now generates over $30 billion a year and employs hundreds of thousands, yet Meta largely silences its voice. Academic and public health discussions are likewise affected. For example, searches for the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission and other state regulators are blocked, stifling access to legitimate information. Critics note that Meta’s drug filters often sweep up educational or advocacy content, undermining discourse just as legalization and medical research on cannabis and psychedelics are expanding. In short, while Meta touts a shift toward free expression, its cannabis content moderation remains rigid – with significant consequences for industry, science and public debate.
Historical Context
To understand this disparity, it helps to trace how digital policies and societal attitudes evolved. Content moderation on social media grew out of earlier efforts by publishers and broadcasters to screen sensitive material. In practice, Meta (then Facebook) kept its detailed rules secret until 2018, when it published a 27-page “Community Standards” document. These rules were meant to balance user safety and free expression, often at the behest of advertisers. Initially, human moderators applied the standards; over time, Meta turned heavily to algorithms to cope with billions of posts. By early 2025, Meta admitted that scanning all content via AI had “resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that shouldn’t have been.” The company has since retrenched, saying it will focus automated enforcement on “illegal and high-severity violations, like terrorism, drugs, fraud and scams,” and rely on user reports for lesser issues. But even this shift leaves cannabis in the “drugs” category – one of its strictest.
Meanwhile, the history of cannabis stigmatization has been long and often racialized. In the early 20th century, U.S. officials and media hyped a “Marijuana Menace,” falsely linking cannabis use to crime and racial stereotypes. Laws grew harsher: in 1970, President Nixon’s administration placed cannabis in the Schedule I category alongside heroin and LSD, asserting it had no medical benefit. (Historians note this reflected Nixon’s political animus rather than science.) The result was decades of criminalization. Even as public opinion has shifted – a Gallup poll in 2024 found 64% of Americans support legalization – the legacy persists. Experts observe that the country’s “racially fueled war against [cannabis]” still casts a long shadow. This cultural background helps explain why even today a drug like cannabis is treated by many as if it warrants blanket censorship, despite being legal in many places and widely used.
Meta’s Current Practices
Today, Meta’s content algorithms enforce this old bias. The company’s recent policy overhaul left its cannabis rules largely intact. As Marijuana Moment reported in January 2025, Meta “appears not to be changing its practices around marijuana,” still blocking search terms and prompting users to report any drug sales. In practice, searching for cannabis-related terms yields a warning instead of legitimate pages. Even official accounts – like state cannabis commissions or medical patient groups – are effectively invisible unless users stumble on them by name.
This selective enforcement reflects Meta’s content hierarchy. Zuckerberg announced that the platform would ease restrictions on topics like gender and immigration, but continue to “focus” on enforcement against “illegal and high-severity violations” such as terrorism and drugs. In other words, cannabis is implicitly lumped with the “illegal” box regardless of local law. As of early 2025, any post praising cannabis or even providing factual health information can trigger limits. For advertisers, the rules remain even stricter: paid promotions of THC products are banned on Facebook and Instagram.
The consequences are real. Legal cannabis businesses report “restricted visibility” and sudden de-listings. The Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA) – which represents over 250 state-legal firms – notes that thousands of legal accounts have had their reach and ads cut off. As one industry editor observes, “strict guidelines often lead to the suppression of legitimate marketing efforts, making it difficult for… businesses like Weedmaps or Leafly to reach their target audience.” Meta’s automated filters even ensnare purely educational or political posts: advocates say that public-health information and legalization news are frequently hidden under drug-sale rules. The result is eroded trust. Users and businesses see healthy, law-abiding content unfairly penalized, while material with sex or violence that is legal often stays online. As Meta’s president of global affairs Nick Clegg admits, the company knows its moderation “error rates are still too high,” and that “harmless content gets taken down… and too many people get penalized unfairly.” Yet the vast scale of content means Meta still relies heavily on automation – even at the cost of these false positives.
Algorithmic Moderation Challenges
The issues above underscore the limits of algorithmic moderation. Artificial intelligence can quickly scan millions of posts, but it lacks nuance. Meta’s own leadership recognizes this. In 2024, Joel Kaplan (Meta’s policy chief) said that blanket automated scanning of all content was leading to excessive censorship. Accordingly, the company has scaled back automated flagging of “non-high-severity” content, shifting more decisions to user reports. Nick Clegg echoed the sentiment, noting in late 2024 that “we know that… our error rates are still too high, which gets in the way of the free expression that we set out to enable.” This candid admission highlights a core trade-off: scale vs. accuracy.
Attempts at moderation reform have produced mixed results. Meta’s shift to a community-notes fact-check model was intended to democratize review, but it does not address cannabis specifically. Nor does it help when the content is not overtly false but simply about a sensitive subject. An illustrative case is the Facebook Oversight Board’s 2021 review of an ayahuasca post. An Instagram user shared a photograph of the psychedelic brew with positive spiritual commentary. Meta’s automated filter flagged it as drug promotion and removed it, despite no sale being mentioned. The Oversight Board unanimously overturned the takedown, finding the post did not violate then-current policies. It explicitly recommended that Meta “allow users to discuss the traditional or religious uses of non-medical drugs in a positive way.” This example shows the need for human context and review in moderation. Human moderators – who already face the grueling task of reviewing violent and sexual content – can catch context that machines miss. It also illustrates how quickly definitions can become outdated: at the time, Instagram’s rules banned drug sales but had no clear exception for cultural discussion, leading to confusion.
Experts therefore argue for a hybrid system. Algorithms can flag obvious illegal content (terrorism, child exploitation, etc.), but sensitive categories like drug use demand human judgment. Third-party oversight – like Meta’s Oversight Board – can provide checks, though their recommendations only apply to individual cases. Policy analysts note that content moderation always involves an “eye of the beholder” problem and that no perfect formula exists. In practice, Meta’s recent reports show that when it decreased automated interventions, user appeals and manual reviews helped cut error rates – at the expense of letting more borderline content stay up. Striking the right balance remains an open challenge.
Broader Implications
Meta’s selective enforcement of cannabis content has ripple effects for society. In terms of public discourse, it creates an information vacuum. When reputable sources and patient voices are filtered out, other actors fill the gap – sometimes with misinformation. Researchers point out that social media is a key information source on cannabis for many Americans. Yet under Meta’s rules, accurate public-health and legislative debate posts can be buried. A Trapculture analysis notes that cannabis searches on Facebook frequently “yield limited results or outright blocks… creating barriers for education and advocacy in a rapidly growing industry”. In effect, Meta’s policies distort the marketplace of ideas: controversial topics like drug policy become harder to discuss openly, which can impede science-based guidance. This is especially ironic given decades of medical research showing potential benefits of cannabis and psychedelics – research that was once stifled by Schedule I status. Suppressing harm-reduction information can inadvertently push conversations to unmoderated platforms.
Economically, the impact is also significant. Cannabis businesses – operating legally under state or local law – rely heavily on social media to reach customers. Yet they face advertising bans and organic de-prioritization on Meta. The MCBA highlights that licensed cannabis firms pay taxes and follow strict regulations, yet their voices are being “silenced” on major platforms. One industry advocate bluntly warns that these digital restrictions stifle growth and innovation. Small dispensaries and startups may suddenly lose their page visibility or be unable to run promotions, hampering customer acquisition. According to MCBA, legitimate accounts have seen abrupt shutdowns of advertising features and sharp drops in engagement. For an emerging industry already up against banking and legal challenges, unfair social media rules can tilt the market toward bigger players who can afford alternative marketing – raising concerns about market distortion.
On the social-justice front, critics argue that cannabis content bans compound historical inequities. Decades of prohibition disproportionately targeted communities of color and small growers. Now, women-owned and minority-owned cannabis businesses say they face “algorithmic suppression” just trying to reach customers. MCBA points out that these policies have an outsize impact on operators who already hit more regulatory barriers. In effect, marginalized voices in the cannabis sector find fewer outlets. This selective moderation can echo the very stereotypes of “deviants” and “inferior races” once used in racist drug crusades, now enacted by Silicon Valley algorithms. Beyond business owners, even patient communities see less support: medical users who seek peer advice or advocacy are harder to find online if Meta filters their groups or hashtags. All of this underscores how content moderation policy intersects with economic and social justice – a license to operate in the legal marketplace shouldn’t become a liability in the digital one.
Policy Reform
Given these problems, stakeholders have proposed reforms to make Meta’s cannabis policies fairer and more transparent. The company’s own Oversight Board essentially instructed Meta to loosen its approach: after the ayahuasca case, it advised allowing positive discussion of traditional drug use. Similarly, industry associations are calling on Meta to modernize its guidelines. The MCBA advocates concrete steps: for example, Meta could implement a verification system so that licensed cannabis businesses can advertise and post without immediate bans, much like alcohol or pharmaceuticals are handled. MCBA also urges Meta to engage in direct dialogue with the cannabis industry to adjust its rules to today’s legal reality. (In the meantime, cannabis entrepreneurs are exploring creative workarounds, such as using cryptic hashtags or focusing on CBD, but these are imperfect fixes.)
Public policy experts suggest more accountability measures. For instance, regulators and legislators are examining whether platforms should have to report how often they remove speech about legal topics. The principle of due process is sometimes invoked: if a company’s algorithm flags your account, there should be a clear appeal mechanism to undo wrongful takedowns. Media analysts also stress transparency: publishing clear guidance on what distinguishes allowed from disallowed cannabis content would at least reduce confusion. Right now, Meta’s rules lump all cannabis imagery and discussion under the same banner. Critics say this is opaque and ask Meta to clarify where it draws the line (e.g. “Can I post about hemp education? Medical cannabis research?”).
In sum, reformers want Meta to align its enforcement with legal norms and social values. If the mission is truly “community standards,” they argue, those standards should recognize the evolving legal landscape. This might mean carving out exemptions for cannabis where it is legal, or adopting age-gating (as Meta does with alcohol) rather than outright bans. Absent such changes, the current practice – effectively forbidding hundreds of thousands of lawful businesses from basic online speech – looks arbitrary and unfair.
Cross-Platform and Global Comparisons
Meta’s approach is not the only model of cannabis content moderation, and the global picture is a patchwork. For example, TikTok’s guidelines are even stricter: its community rules explicitly forbid any depiction, promotion or trade of drugs or controlled substances. On TikTok, even symbolic images of cannabis typically lead to removal. By contrast, Twitter (now X) under Elon Musk has loosened its stance: in 2023 it became the first major network to allow certified cannabis advertisers in U.S. states where marijuana is legal. Twitter now permits paid ads with actual cannabis products, as long as advertisers meet a lengthy set of rules. (Notably, this shift was primarily about advertising; Twitter’s rules on user posts are less clear but have generally been more permissive under Musk.)
Other platforms sit in between. Google’s YouTube technically bans the sale of cannabis, but many educational videos about marijuana stay up if they avoid claims of safety or promote medical use. Research finds that among top platforms, nearly all (except TikTok) even mention cannabis in their terms. Most explicitly prohibit sales and paid promotions, and many require ads to target only legal jurisdictions. Instagram and Snapchat, in particular, mirror Facebook’s rules: they ban any cannabis advertising and often remove cannabis images. (Apple and Google both forbid cannabis in app store ads as well.)
Globally, enforcement reflects local laws to a degree, but social media companies tend to default to the strictest approach. In Canada – which fully legalized cannabis in 2018 – businesses have also run into Meta’s brick wall. Canadian cannabis marketers were “scratching their heads” when Facebook in 2025 continued to ban content and block search results, ignoring the country’s legal status. Similarly, in Europe some markets (like the Netherlands) are more permissive about cannabis in society, but on social media the platforms generally stick to corporate policy rather than national law. The net effect is that a social media post legal in Vancouver might be flagged, and another legal in Amsterdam might be hidden – depending on whether the platform knows where you are.
This inconsistent regime can cause confusion. A user banned for a cannabis photo on Facebook might upload the same image to Twitter or Snapchat without issue. It also raises questions of equity: why should the platform acting as a public forum apply one rule to weed but another to wine or sex? As one industry analysis puts it, “Meta still considers cannabis… to be on the ‘no-no list’” despite legalization trends. Observers point out that only through legislative or global industry standards can a uniform policy emerge. Until then, companies treat cannabis content the way they do – unevenly.
Ethical Reflections
At root, the issue of cannabis content moderation is an ethical question about free expression and power. Meta may be a private company, but its reach is so vast that its policies effectively influence public discourse. When algorithms mute large swaths of lawful speech, concerns about censorship inevitably arise. This is especially poignant given the shifting views on cannabis: what was demonized yesterday is mainstream today. Tech ethicists argue that platforms have a responsibility to ensure moderation does not become a form of arbitrary censorship. In a democracy, citizens need access to diverse perspectives, including about subjects like drug policy. Policy watchers compare social media to a modern-day “public square,” where information is exchanged. If that square is fenced off for some topics and not others, the balance of ideas is skewed.
On the flip side, Meta must also police genuinely harmful speech. It enforces hate speech and child protection more vigorously. The company and its defenders say this discretion is necessary to keep users safe. But the decision to treat cannabis discussion as inherently dangerous (requiring swift removal) is subjective. Skeptics note that neither society nor science treats every cannabis mention as a threat – indeed, official agencies and news outlets regularly publish about cannabis legality and health. From an ethical standpoint, continuing to censor those voices suggests a paternalistic stance: users cannot decide if cannabis info is beneficial or not.
Balancing these values – free speech versus harm prevention – is a central tension of digital platforms. In principle, many agree that discussing the regulation, science and cultural role of cannabis should be protected speech. How to achieve that while still filtering actual illegal activity is a tricky policy question. Some propose clearer categories: for instance, allowing discussion and images of cannabis plants while banning explicit sales or illegal uses. This would mirror how platforms handle other sensitive content (e.g., medical discussions of abortion or sexual health are often permitted if factual).
Finally, the cannabis case highlights a broader truth: content moderation is not neutral. When platforms wield their power selectively, questions of accountability follow. Should a company have the final say on what entire communities can talk about? Many digital-rights advocates believe not without oversight. In recent years there have been proposals (from regulators and NGOs) for transparency reports, independent audit of algorithms, and stronger appeals processes. The goal is to ensure that when a social media giant enforces speech rules, it does so transparently and fairly. If Meta’s cannabis content moderation were subject to those standards, we might see concrete data on how many posts are flagged and why, and whether removals are contested.
As it stands, Meta’s approach seems guided more by internal custom than by consistent principle. For industry professionals and users alike, the key question is whether Meta’s version of digital democracy will evolve. Will the company relax its taboo as society’s norms change? Or will cannabis remain an “exception” in content rules, treated like an inherently illicit subject even when it’s neither illegal nor inherently harmful? The stakes extend beyond one plant: they touch on how free our online conversations can be, who gets heard, and what the future of public discourse will look like on global platforms.
Trap Culture is the ultimate destination for cannabis enthusiasts who want to experience the best of Arizona’s cannabis culture. Whether you are looking for the hottest cannabis-friendly events, the latest news on cannabis legalization, trends in the industry and exclusive, limited-edition products from the top brands in the market, Trap Culture has you covered. Visit our website to learn more about our events, our blog, and our store. Follow us on social media to stay updated on the latest news and promotions. Join the Trap Culture family and experience the most immersive and engaging social cannabis events in Arizona.
Follow us on social media
