Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision on December 8, 2023, overturning Meta’s decision to remove a post sharing a YouTube video that claimed Islamic scholars were unwilling to debate atheists. The Board expressed concern that the misapplication of Meta’s policies could hinder freedom of expression, particularly for censored groups such as Bengali atheists. Meta reversed its decision and restored the post after being notified of the user’s appeal by the Board.

*The Oversight Board is a separate entity from Meta and will provide its independent judgment on both individual cases and questions of policy. Both the Board and its administration are funded by an independent trust. The Board has the authority to decide whether Facebook and Instagram should allow or remove content. The Board issues full decisions and summary decisions. Decisions, except summary decisions, are binding unless implementing them could violate the law. The Board can also choose to issue recommendations on the company’s content policies. Summary decisions are a transparency mechanism, providing information to the public on Meta’s decision making and the Board’s recommendations relating to cases where Meta reversed its original decision on its own accord, after receiving notice from the Board about the appeal.

Facts

In May 2023, a user who identifies as an atheist and critic of religion shared a link to a YouTube video on Facebook. The video thumbnail, in Bengali, read “Why are Islamic scholars afraid to debate the atheists on video blogs?” and featured an image of two Islamic scholars. The user captioned the post with, “Join the premiere to get the answer!” The content received approximately 4,000 views.

Meta initially removed the post under its Coordinating Harm and Promoting Crime policy, which prohibits supporting, planning, endorsing, or condoning certain illegal or harmful behaviors directed at individuals, companies, assets, or animals. However, Meta did not provide a specific explanation for the removal.

The user appealed the decision to the Oversight Board.

Decision Overview

The primary issue before the Board was whether the removal of a post sharing a video debating Islam was consistent with Meta’s values, content policies and its human rights responsibilities.

In the appeal to the Board, the user stated that their goal was to promote healthy debate with Islamic scholars and emphasized that the content adhered to Facebook’s policies by fostering discussion. The user also highlighted the broader context, noting that Bangladeshi atheist activists often face censorship and physical harm.

On the other hand, Meta reversed its original decision after being notified of the appeal by the Board. It acknowledged that, while the atheist views expressed in the post might provoke strong reactions in Bangladesh, the content did not violate its policies. Meta clarified that while attacks based on religious affiliation can breach its Hate Speech policy, criticism of religious ideologies or concepts is permitted.

The Board emphasized that this case illustrated enforcement errors under the Coordinating Harm and Promoting Crime policy, which could unjustly restrict the expression of marginalized groups. It noted that the policy allows discussion and debate about harmful acts, provided the user is not supporting or planning them, meaning much depends on interpreting user intent. In this case, the post was provocative, but the user’s intent was misinterpreted, as there was no advocacy of harmful behavior.

The Board recalled its recommendation from the “Öcalan’s Isolation” decision for Meta to help users clarify their intent through illustrative examples of permissible and prohibited content. Meta partially implemented this. The Board also reiterated its recommendation from the “Breast Cancer Symptoms and Nudity” decision for Meta to create an internal audit system to analyze erroneous automated content removals. Meta claimed it was already doing this but did not provide supporting evidence. Additionally, the Board repeated its recommendation from the “Punjabi Concern Over the RSS in India” decision, urging Meta to improve transparency reporting by disaggregating error rates by country and language for each policy. Meta is still assessing the feasibility of this recommendation.

The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s original decision and acknowledged the company’s correction of the error. The Board urged Meta to fully implement the outstanding recommendations to minimize future enforcement errors.