Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision overturning Meta’s original decision to remove a post that linked to a Washington Post article outlining the chronology of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After the Board brought the appeal to Meta’s attention, the company reversed its decision and restored the content. The Board found that the case exemplified ongoing over-enforcement of the Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, particularly in relation to news reporting—a recurring issue amid the current Israel-Hamas conflict. It reiterated the need for Meta to fully implement past recommendations, including publishing more detailed data on enforcement errors involving praise or support of designated groups or individuals in its transparency report, and improving the accuracy of its “news reporting allowance” to prevent wrongful removals of journalistic content.

*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 October 2023, a user shared a link to a Washington Post article on Facebook detailing the chronology of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The automatic article preview mentioned Hamas. The post did not contain any caption nor include any further context.

Meta removed the post under its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy, which prohibits support and glorification of designated groups and individuals—including Hamas—that the company considers linked to real-world harm.

The user appealed to the Oversight Board (OSB), emphasizing that the post was intended to report on the current Israel-Hamas conflict and was not meant to support Hamas or any other dangerous organization.

After the Board brought this case to Meta’s attention, the company determined the content did not violate the DOI policy as the post referenced Hamas in a news-reporting context, which is allowed under the policy. Subsequently, the company restored the content to Facebook.

Decision Overview

On April 4, 2024, the Oversight Board issued a summary decision on the matter. The OSB had to decide whether a Facebook post that linked to a news article outlining the chronology of the conflict between Palestine and Israel violated Meta’s DOI policy. It decided to take on the appeal in light of the case’s significance, which highlights the company’s over-enforcement of its DOI policy—specifically when it comes to news reporting on entities the company designates as dangerous. The Board noted this had been a recurring problem that became particularly frequent during the Israel-Hamas conflict. Considering that Hamas was designated by Meta as a dangerous organization under its policy, the OSB recommended the company to address continued errors related to the news reporting allowance and how those can limit free expression, the public’s access to information, and impair public discourse.

The Board highlighted its recommendation from the Mention of the Taliban in News Reporting decision, urging Meta to evaluate the accuracy of its policy enforcement on DOI to uncover systematic errors. Meta responded by stating it already conducts such evaluations, but did not provide any proof.

Furthermore, the OSB recalled its recommendation requesting Meta to clarify its DOI policy by adding specific criteria and examples, particularly regarding allowances for neutral discussions and news reporting—as established in the Shared Al Jazeera Post decision. The company published information demonstrating the implementation of the policy.

Additionally, the Board reiterated its recommendation asking Meta to provide detailed data on enforcement errors related to content praising and supporting designated groups and individuals in its transparency reporting, as outlined in the Öcalan’s Isolation case. However, after a feasibility assessment, Meta declined to implement this recommendation.

The OSB called on Meta to fully implement its recommendations to reduce the number of enforcement errors under the DOI policy. Consequently, it overturned the company’s original decision and acknowledged the fact that Meta restored the content after the appeal was brought to the Board’s attention.