Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision on April 4, 2024, overturning Meta’s original decision to remove a journalist’s Facebook post detailing his experience of visiting Gaza and interviewing Abdel Azis Al-Rantisi, a co-founder of Hamas. The Board highlighted that this case exemplified Meta’s overenforcement of its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, particularly in relation to news reporting on designated groups or individuals—a recurring issue in Israel-Hamas conflict reporting that risks restricting free expression and public information access. Meta reversed its original decision and restored the post after being notified of the user’s appeal by the Board.

*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

Following the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, a journalist shared a Facebook post describing a previous trip to Gaza, during which they encountered residents, met Hamas members, and interviewed Abdel Aziz Al-Rantisi, a Hamas co-founder. The post included four photographs, featuring Al-Rantisi, the interviewer, and masked Hamas members.

Meta removed the post for violating the Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy, which designates Hamas as a Tier 1 organization. The policy prohibits any content supporting designated individuals or organizations; however, it allows discussion of such individuals and groups in the context of social and political discourse, including reporting on, neutrally discussing, or condemning them or their activities.

The user appealed the removal decision to the Oversight Board.

Decision Overview

The main issue before the Board was whether removing the journalist’s post was consistent with Meta’s values, content policies and human rights obligations.

In the appeal, the user explained that the post was intended to inform the public about their experience in Gaza and the interview with a Hamas co-founder.

On Meta’s end, Meta reviewed the content and reversed its original decision upon being notified of the appeal. It concluded that the post did not violate the DOI policy, as it aimed to raise awareness and clearly fell within the allowance for social and political discourse. Meta also found no ambiguity in the user’s intent.

The Board noted that the case demonstrated over-enforcement of the DOI policy with respect to news reporting on designated groups—a recurring issue during the Israel-Hamas conflict. The Board warned that repeated misapplication of this allowance could significantly restrict freedom of expression and public access to information. It also noted that it had previously issued several recommendations on enforcing the news reporting allowance.

The Board recalled its recommendation from the “Shared Al Jazeera post” decision, urging Meta to include clear criteria and examples in the DOI policy to clarify neutral discussion and news reporting exceptions. Meta has demonstrated implementation of this recommendation through published updates and a 2023 policy revision that replaced the term “praise” with “glorification.”

Moreover, the Board reiterated its recommendation from the “Mention of the Taliban in news reporting” decision that Meta assess how accurately it applies the news reporting allowance and address systemic enforcement issues. Meta reported implementation but did not publish further details.

The Board also highlighted its recommendation from the “Breast cancer symptoms and nudity” decision, calling Meta to establish a continuous internal audit process to regularly review a representative sample of automated content removal decisions to identify and correct enforcement errors. Meta has reported implementing this recommendation.

Ultimately, the Board overturned Meta’s original removal decision and acknowledged its correction of the initial error, emphasizing the importance of fully implementing the Board’s recommendations to reduce enforcement errors under the DOI policy.