Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board (OSB) issued a summary decision overturning Meta’s removal of an Instagram post that depicted a fictional “X” (formerly Twitter) thread satirizing Elon Musk’s engagement with extremist content. Meta reversed its original decision and restored the post after the Board brought the case to its attention. The OSB ruled that the post did not violate Meta’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, underscoring that the case reflected broader challenges in Meta’s ability to accurately identify satire and assess user intent.

*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 July 2023, an Instagram user shared an image depicting a fictional “X” (formerly Twitter) thread. While the image imitated the concept of a thread, it did not resemble the platform’s actual layout. The fictional thread included inflammatory statements attributed to a made-up user, such as: “KKK never did anything wrong to Black people,” “Hitler didn’t hate Jews,” and “LGBT are all pedophiles.” Elon Musk was portrayed as responding to these statements with the phrase, “Looking into this…” The post received limited engagement, with fewer than 500 views.

Meta removed the post under its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy, which prohibits content that supports or represents individuals or groups designated as dangerous, such as Adolf Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan. However, the policy includes an exception for satirical content, which may be allowed if the harmful elements are clearly being mocked or criticized.

The user appealed the decision to the Oversight Board (OSB), stating that the post was satirical and intended to criticize Elon Musk for his perceived engagement with extremist content on his platform—not to support the KKK, Hitler, or hate speech. After the Board brought the appeal to Meta’s attention, the company reviewed the case, acknowledged the error, and restored the post, concluding that it did not violate the DOI policy and had been removed in error.

Decision Overview

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision on March 7, 2024. The central issue before the OSB was whether the removal of a post that satirized Elon Musk’s engagement with extremist content was consistent with Meta’s content policies, values, and human rights responsibilities.

The Board emphasized that this case illustrated Meta’s ongoing difficulties in correctly identifying satirical content. It recalled its earlier recommendations in the Two Buttons Meme decision, where it urged Meta to equip content reviewers with better tools to assess satire—such as access to local operations teams for cultural and contextual insight, and sufficient time to consult them when needed. While Meta claimed it implemented this recommendation, the company did not publish any evidence to substantiate or demonstrate the effectiveness of the implementation.

The OSB also pointed to Meta’s broader challenges when assessing user intent, particularly under its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy. It called on Meta to provide users with clearer guidance—such as illustrative examples—on how to communicate intent and distinguish between prohibited content and content that merely references or critiques designated individuals or groups, as laid out in earlier decisions (Öcalan’s Isolation case).

The Board stressed that implementing these recommendations fully and transparently could significantly reduce enforcement errors involving satirical content.

The OSB ultimately overturned Meta’s original decision—and welcomed the company’s correction following the Board’s intervention—finding that the content did not violate the DOI policy and should not have been removed in the first place.