Meta’s latest brand safety victory lap at Davos would have you believe that social media is a safe, well-regulated space for brands. That advertisers have nothing to worry about. In this op-ed, Luke Robinson, chief marketing officer at WeAre8 -The People’s Platform questions if the people we’re all trying to reach, the ones engaging with content and buying from brands, feel the same way?
Scratch beneath the surface, and the disconnect between corporate assurances and lived online experiences becomes clear. Beyond the polished press releases, there are real people hurting online every day.
What Brand Safety Really Means
Brand safety isn’t a new concept. For decades, brands have swiftly pulled budgets from traditional media when content crosses the line – Kylie Sandilands makes a controversial remark? Ad dollars vanish. MAFS gets too risqué? No investment. Even YouTube faced a mass advertiser boycott over brand ads appearing alongside harmful UGC back in 2017.
So why does big social tech get a free pass?
For years, platforms like Facebook and Instagram have reassured advertisers that their brands won’t be associated with hate speech, violence, or inappropriate content. But what about the actual safety of everyday users? The people exposed to racist abuse in comment sections, personal attacks, and an algorithm designed to prioritise outrage over meaningful connection?
Meta’s narrative suggests that brands are satisfied with the current measures. But racial slurs, online harassment, and unchecked misinformation persist. You only need to look at ABC Star, Tony Armstrong’s Instagram to get a taste of the poison, or the trolling that persists on profiles like former AFLW star Akec Makur Chuot. Imagine what less high profile people are dealing with.
If brand safety is measured solely by ad placement, while the broader environment remains toxic, then it isn’t safe at all. It’s optics.
Safety Should Be More Than a Checkbox
True brand safety must go beyond ad adjacency. It should mean creating digital environments where people feel secure, respected, and valued. But today, some of the world’s biggest brands, many of which champion inclusivity and mental well-being in their campaigns, continue to pour money into platforms that enable harmful content to co-exist and thrive.
If brands truly care about the values they promote, they must demand better. They must push for systemic change, stronger content moderation, meaningful AI enforcement, and real consequences for platforms that fail to act.
Some argue that moderating billions of posts daily is an impossible task. But when companies like Meta generate billions in ad revenue, they also bear the responsibility to reinvest in real solutions. We’ve seen industries like fashion and food take accountability for their impact – why should social media be any different?
Brands Hold the Power
Brand safety should be about more than damage control. It should be about accountability. As brand custodians, you have power – the power to demand higher standards, the power to choose where you invest, and the power to walk away from platforms that refuse to take action and explore alternatives.
If Meta and other social giants want to claim their spaces are “safe,” they need to do more than pacify advertisers. They need to prove it, through consistent, meaningful action. That means going beyond compliance with pending legislation to protect those under 16 from the harms of social media and actually make their platforms safer for all users, not just brands.
Because brand safety isn’t just about brands. It’s about people. And if people don’t feel safe, then brands aren’t truly safe either.
