Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision on December 8, 2023, overturning Meta’s original decision to remove an Instagram post calling for the return of Ukrainian Azov Regiment soldiers held in Russian captivity. Meta had removed the post under its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy. The Board noted that this case exemplified shortcomings in the updates and enforcement of the DOI policy during wartime. Meta reversed its original decision after being notified of the user’s appeal.

*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 December 2022, an Instagram user posted an image of the Azov Regiment symbol with an overlaid text in Ukrainian asking, “Where is Azov?” The caption referred to the 700 Azov soldiers in Russian captivity and called for their return, stating: “we must scream until all the Azovs are back from captivity!” The post garnered nearly 800 views and was detected by Meta’s automated classifiers.

Meta initially removed the post under its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy, which prohibits content that praises, supports, or represents individuals or organizations designated as dangerous. However, the policy does allow for reporting on and neutral discussion of those designated entities.

Meta later clarified that it removed the Azov Regiment from its Dangerous Organizations list in January 2023, distinguishing between the Azov Regiment, under the control of the Ukrainian government, and the broader Azov movement, which Meta still designates as a far-right nationalist group considered dangerous.

The user appealed Meta’s decision to the Oversight Board.

Decision Overview

The central issue before the Board was whether the removal of the post was consistent with Meta’s values, content policies and its human rights responsibilities.

In their appeal, the user emphasized the importance of news dissemination during wartime and argued that the content did not violate Meta’s policies, which allow commentary on the Azov Regiment.

On the other hand, Meta reversed its decision after being notified of the appeal, stating that the Azov Regiment is no longer designated as a dangerous organization. Moreover, even if the designation had remained, the post would qualify for an exception allowing discussion of the human rights of members of designated entities.

The Board highlighted that this case demonstrated the shortcomings in updating and enforcing the DOI policy, particularly during armed conflict, and emphasized the systematic challenges in applying exceptions to the policy.

The Board recalled its recommendation from the “Öcalan’s Isolation” decision, urging Meta to allow users to discuss human rights abuses involving members of designated organizations, an initiative Meta committed to implement. The Board also reiterated two additional recommendations from that case: first, for Meta to provide internal guidance and training to moderators when new policies are adopted; and second, for the company to clarify enforcement error rates related to “praise” and “support” of dangerous individuals and organizations. Additionally, the Board referenced a recommendation from the “Breast Cancer Symptoms and Nudity” decision, calling for Meta to implement an internal audit process to reduce automated enforcement mistakes.

The Board overturned Meta’s original removal decision and acknowledged the company’s correction of the error. It emphasized that fully implementing the above recommendations would reduce similar enforcement mistakes.