Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision on September 13, 2023, overturning Meta’s removal of an Instagram post featuring an interview in which a user mocked the Secretary-General of Hezbollah. The Board noted that this case highlights the over-enforcement of Meta’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, which can undermine users’ ability to engage in political discourse and news reporting. After being notified of the user’s appeal by the Board, Meta reversed its decision and restored 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 January 2023, a Lebanese activist posted an Instagram video of a news interview conducted in Arabic. The interviewer asked whether a soccer player or Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, was more useful. The activist criticized Nasrallah, referencing his support for unpopular Lebanese politicians and Hezbollah’s history of plane hijackings and kidnappings. Muted Clips of Nasrallah played in the background. The activist added a satirical caption: “Let’s see how many goals Nasrallah can score first.” The post received 137,414 views and 11 reports.

Meta initially removed the post for violating its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy. However, after the Board notified Meta of the user’s appeal, the company reversed its decision.

Decision Overview

The main issue before the Board was whether removing a satirical post criticizing the Secretary General of Hezbollah was compatible with Meta’s values, content policies and human rights obligations.

In his appeal, the user alleged that Hezbollah runs coordinated reporting to silence critics, though the Board did not verify this claim. The user also argued that Hezbollah exploits Instagram’s policies to suppress dissent.

Meta acknowledged that while Nasrallah is classified as a dangerous individual under its policy, the post constituted permissible criticism and satire.

The Board found this case indicative of over-enforcement under the DOI policy’s prohibition on “praise,” which risks stifling political commentary and news reporting.

The Board reiterated two recommendations from its “Mention of the Taliban in News Reporting” decision. The first was to create a “reporting” allowance in the policy to permit positive statements about dangerous organizations and individuals when made in a news reporting context. Meta has committed to implementing this. The second was to test the accuracy of the “reporting” allowance to pinpoint issues causing enforcement errors. Meta is still assessing this recommendation.

Additionally, the Board recalled a recommendation from its “Shared Al Jazeera Post” decision, urging Meta to clarify criteria and provide examples to improve understanding of neutral discussion and news reporting allowances.

Ultimately, the Board overturned Meta’s original decision to remove the post and acknowledged Meta’s correction of the initial error.