The following remarks were read aloud at the Meta Annual Meeting on 5/27/2026.
My name is Dani Nurick, and I am the Director of Advocacy at JLens, a Jewish investor network and affiliate of ADL (the Anti-Defamation League). I’m here to present Proposal 8, which asks Meta to publish a report assessing the effectiveness of its policies and practices in addressing antisemitism and other forms of hate on its platforms.
Last year we submitted a similar proposal, which more than 46% of votes cast by independent shareholders supported. Because Meta has failed to take adequate action to combat the proliferation of hateful rhetoric on its platforms in our view, we are back this year with another proposal.
Since Meta’s 2025 decision to dismantle its third-party fact-checking program, ADL researchers have documented the impact. As of April 15, 2026, on Instagram,105 accounts affiliated with the white supremacist Groyper network — with over 1.4 million combined followers — regularly post Holocaust denial, antisemitic conspiracy theories, and pro-Hitler content. Accounts linked to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations — including ISIS and Al-Qaeda — retained over 340,000 followers. When ADL reported this content, Instagram removed only 7% of it.
Meta’s own Oversight Board has raised serious concerns and has called on the company to assess the human rights impacts of its policy changes.
Even shareholders unmoved by the moral case should recognize the business risk.
Meta’s business is advertising. In 2025, ads brought in roughly $200 billion, about 97% of total revenue according to Meta’s financial statements. That concentration means content-governance failures could hit revenue from two sides at once. On the demand side, if harmful content rises, advertisers may cut spend, tighten placement rules, or push for lower prices, and we believe Meta’s recent policy rollback heightens that exposure. On the supply side, Meta monetizes attention. If user trust erodes, engagement could decline, shrinking the inventory Meta sells and weakening the pricing power behind it. These are risks to the core of how Meta makes money.
Meta operates at a scale no institution in history has ever managed. Three billion users. Billions of posts a day, in more than a hundred languages. Moderating that volume of speech is genuinely hard, and no reasonable shareholder expects perfection.
But difficulty is not a defense against accountability. Rabbi Tarfon, a first-century Jewish sage, offers timeless advice in the Ethics of the Fathers: “It is not your responsibility to finish the work, but neither are you free to desist from it.”
No one expects Meta to finish the work of eliminating online hate. But Meta is not free to desist. Shareholders are not free to look away.
Proposal 8 asks for one basic measure of accountability: a report telling shareholders whether Meta’s safeguards against antisemitism and other forms of hate are actually working.
We urge shareholders to Vote FOR Proposal 8.
Thank you.
