Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision on April 18, 2024, overturning Meta’s original choice to leave up a Facebook post that claimed Hamas reflected the innermost desires of Gaza’s population and compared Gazans to a “savage horde.” The Board found Meta’s Hate Speech policy enforcement inefficient, particularly in addressing content targeting protected characteristics, since the post in question involved clear dehumanization of an entire population (a direct attack on protected groups) with especially severe consequences during armed conflicts. After being notified of the appeal by the Board, Meta reversed its decision and removed the post.

*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 2023, a Facebook user reposted an image featuring text claiming that Gaza’s general public were not victims of Hamas and that the group reflected the innermost desires of “a savage horde.” The caption endorsed the post with the words “the truth.” The content received fewer than 500 views.

The report claimed that the post violates Meta’s Hate Speech policy, which prohibits attacks on groups based on protected characteristics, including ethnicity and nationality, and explicitly bans comparisons to sub-humanity, such as labeling people “savages.” The post in question targeted Palestinians in Gaza based on these protected characteristics.

Despite receiving reports, Meta initially left the post up, prompting a user to appeal the decision to the Board.

Decision Overview

The main issue before the Board was whether Meta’s decision to retain the post dehumanizing Gazans was compatible with Meta’s values, content policies and human rights obligations.

In their appeal to the Board, the reporting user stated that the content generalized and dehumanized Gaza’s population. After the Board notified Meta of the appeal, the company removed the post, recognizing that it violated its Hate Speech policy.

The Board noted that this case demonstrated Meta’s enforcement errors of its Hate Speech policy regarding hate speech targeting protected groups. It also emphasized the heightened impact of such errors during armed conflicts and the need for stronger content moderation.

Furthermore, the Board drew a comparison between this case and the Knin Cartoon decision, which involved hate speech implicitly comparing an ethnic group to rats. While the Knin Cartoon required historical and cultural context to fully grasp its meaning, the Board found that the current post directly tied dehumanizing language to an entire population, making it a clear attack based on protected characteristics.

The Board also referenced its earlier recommendation in the Knin Cartoon decision, urging Meta to clarify in its Hate Speech policy that implicit hate speech violates its policy when the reference would be reasonably understood. Meta reported the implementation of this recommendation by adding a clarification to its Community Standards stating that “implicit hate speech will be removed if escalated by at-scale reviewers to expert review, where Meta can reasonably understand the user’s intent.” However, the Board considered this a partial implementation, as the update was only reflected in the introductory section of the Community Standards, not within the Hate Speech policy itself. It stressed the need for full implementation to reduce enforcement errors.

Ultimately, the Board overturned Meta’s original decision and acknowledged the company’s correction of its initial decision.