Janice R. Andrews
Meta’s Oversight Board has made its first decision about a post on Threads. It overturned the company’s first decision and asked for better rules. In this case, there was a post about Japan’s former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida that had a word in it that means “drop dead” or “die” in English. It was decided by the Oversight Board that the phrase was used loosely and not as a real death threat. They also said that Meta’s decision to delete the post was not justified.
The Event and Post in Question
The case began with a Threads post that linked to a news story about Prime Minister Kishida’s response to claims that his political party was engaging in “fundraising irregularities.” In answer, another user said bad things about Kishida and used the term “死ね,” which means “drop dead” or “die.” There were also mean things said about people who wear glasses in the post.
The post didn’t get many likes or comments, but it was reported under Meta’s rules for bullying and harassment. After three weeks, Meta’s admins looked at the post again and found that it broke the platform’s rules against violence and incitement. Even though the user appealed, the decision to remove the content was supported by a second judge. The case didn’t get to Meta’s Oversight Board until the third go-around.
The Oversight Board’s Decision
When the Oversight Board looked again, they saw that the strong language in the post was meant to be taken in a political context. People pointed out that “㭻ね” is a strong but popular way to criticize politicians on Japanese social media. The board said that the post probably wouldn’t hurt anyone, and the word “hah” added to the implication that the comment was meant in a symbolic way.
The threat against a political leader in this case was meant to be political criticism that wasn’t taken literally. It was meant to draw attention to claimed corruption, which is common on Japanese social media, the Oversight Board said. The board said that the censors made a mistake when they decided to remove the post, so they set that decision aside.
Calls for greater policy clarity
The Oversight Board said that Meta should give its editors better instructions after this decision, especially when it comes to understanding local languages and situations. Meta’s Violence and Incitement policy says that the word “death to” should not be used around “high-risk persons,” but the board said that the policy isn’t clear enough. Because it’s not clear, there is room for misunderstanding and uneven control.
The board asked Meta to explain how threats like the one in this case should be dealt with, especially when they are made against famous people. The board also told Meta that it needed to tell the difference between threats against “high-risk persons” and threats against public figures. Threats against “high-risk persons” should only be taken down when they are seen as “credible.”
It was a busy month for Meta’s oversight board in September.
This is one of several recent choices made by Meta’s Oversight Board, which has been busier than usual since September. The board said last week that the saying “From the River to the Sea” shouldn’t be banned. They also looked into another case in Venezuela regarding death threats made in speech. As these cases show, Meta still has a hard time controlling political speech and keeping the community safe while also allowing free speech.
This case shows how important clear rules are and how hard it is to moderate material from around the world that is written in different languages and cultural settings. Meta is still adding more rules and review processes to its platform.
