Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision on December 18, 2023, overturning Meta’s decision to remove four posts containing a quote by Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels. In each of the posts, users either drew parallels between Nazi Germany and present-day political discourse or discussed threats to freedom of expression caused by misinformation. The Board noted that these cases highlighted Meta’s failure to distinguish between prohibited supportive speech of dangerous organizations and permitted neutral or condemning speech, ultimately undermining freedom of expression. Meta reversed its original decisions and restored the content after being notified of the appeals.

*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

Four separate users posted the quote, “A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth,” attributed to Nazi propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels. Each user accompanied the quote with commentary drawing comparisons between Nazi Germany and present-day political discourse or highlighting threats to freedom of expression posed by the normalization of false information.

Meta originally removed the posts from Facebook for violating its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy, which prohibits content that praises or supports designated organizations, including the Nazi Party. However, the policy allows references to such organizations when made neutrally or to condemn them.

The users appealed Meta’s decisions to the Board.

Decision Overview

The central issue before the Oversight Board was whether the removal of the posts aligned with Meta’s values, content policies and human rights responsibilities.

In their submissions to the Board, the users emphasized that their use of the quote was not intended to support Goebbels or the Nazi Party but to criticize the harmful effects of propaganda and misinformation.

On the other hand, Meta reversed its original decisions upon being notified of the appeals. It concluded that the posts did not support the Nazi Party but instead described the regime’s use of falsehoods to underscore the importance of ethical and factual standards in public discourse.
The Board found that these cases demonstrated Meta’s ongoing failure in distinguishing between supportive speech and speech that is neutral or condemning. Errors resulting from this failure severely limit freedom of expression.

Additionally, the Board referenced three recommendations from the “Mention of the Taliban in News Reporting” decision. The first urged Meta to evaluate the accuracy of reviewers applying the DOI policy and to identify systemic causes of enforcement errors. The second recommendation encouraged Meta to review its High Impact False Positive Override (HIPO) ranker to determine whether it can better prioritize potential DOI enforcement errors for further review. Meta is still assessing the feasibility of this change. The third recommendation was for Meta to improve HIPO review capacity across languages to ensure more potential enforcement errors are examined by human reviewers. Meta has reported that it implemented this recommendation, but has not published supporting information.

The Board also reiterated a recommendation from the “Nazi quote” decision that Meta clarify and provide examples for the terms “praise,” “support,” and “representations” in the DOI policy, aligning them with definitions in its Internal Implementation Standards. Meta has implemented this recommendation.

The Board emphasized that it is common and generally acceptable in political discourse to reference known dangerous figures in order to criticize current individuals or actions. These four cases illustrate the need for more effective enforcement practices aligned with the Board’s guidance.

The Board overturned Meta’s initial decisions and acknowledged Meta’s correction of its enforcement errors.