Janice R. Andrews
A lot of people are upset about Meta’s recent decision that the term “From the River to the Sea” does not break the platform’s rules against hate speech, violence, or dangerous organisations. The board made the decision after looking at three cases of Facebook posts that were warned for using the phrase, which many people see as being pro-Palestinian. This move also made it clear that journalists and experts need better access to Facebook’s material data.
What the Phrase Means
“From the River to the Sea” refers to the land that is between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. The term is a highly charged slogan because it has been used in many different ways. Some people, like the Anti-Defamation League, say that the term is often used in campaigns against Israel and can have anti-Semitic meanings. They say it calls for Israel to be destroyed or for Jews to be kept out of the area.
But some people have a different view. Last year, U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib said that the term is a “aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence,” especially in light of the conflict between Israel and Gaza. She stressed that the term doesn’t call for violence or hatred; instead, it shows support for justice and human rights.
The Oversight Board’s Decision
For its part, Meta’s Oversight Board said that “From the River to the Sea” is not a “standalone phrase” that encourages violence or hate against any group. The board made it clear that the term can mean different things and shouldn’t be banned in all situations. It warned that taking down material with the term without looking at its exact context would unfairly limit political speech on Meta’s platforms.
When reviewing user material, the board stressed how important it was to look at the term in its proper context. It said, “A blanket ban on content that includes the phrase… would hinder protected political speech in unacceptable ways.”
There needs to be more openness.
The decision also made it clear that Meta needs to be more open about how it uses its content filtering tools. The board was especially upset about the platform’s choice to shut down the CrowdTangle tool in August. Journalists and students liked CrowdTangle because it let them look at data from social media sites like Facebook and Instagram in real time.
Since CrowdTangle stopped working, Meta created the Meta Content Library, a new system with tighter rules for who can access it. Researchers from academic or non-profit groups are the only ones who can use this library. Many, though, say that the new system isn’t as open and easy to use as CrowdTangle, which makes people worry that they won’t be able to get to important data as easily.
Here are some suggestions made by the Oversight Board:
The board told Meta that it needed to act quickly to make its Content Library easier to get to. In particular, it advised that Meta hire skilled reporters and researchers within three weeks of receiving their applications. The board also told Meta to make sure that the Content Library is a good option for CrowdTangle that gives the same level of access and openness.
This decision shows that there are still problems with how content is moderated, free speech, and how data is shared on social media sites like Facebook. Users and authorities around the world will continue to keep a close eye on Meta’s ability to balance these different needs.
