The Meta Supervisory Board has Heavy in its first Threads case and overturned the company’s initial decision and first appeal. Regarding a post about outgoing Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, which used a phrase that translates to “drop dead/die” in English, the board determined that the phrase was used figuratively and not as a literal threat or call to violence.
The case was sparked by a post on Threads that featured a news article about Kishida and her reaction to her political party's campaign. (Ahem) “irregularities in fundraising.” The caption criticized the Prime Minister, accusing him of tax evasion. The user’s response demanded an explanation from the government leader and, calling him a tax evader, used the phrase “死ね,” or “die/die.” The post also included “ha” and derogatory language about people who wear glasses. (Watch out, buddy!)
The post went largely unnoticed and didn't get any likes. However, someone reported it under Meta's rules on harassment and bullying. After three weeks, one of Meta's reviewers determined that it violated rules on violence and incitement instead. The user appealed, and another reviewer agreed with the first that it violated policy. A further appeal brought the issue to the forum, which accepted the case and overturned the decision of the two human reviewers who removed it.
“In this case, the threat against a political leader was intended as a non-literal political criticism that called attention to alleged corruption, using strong language, something that is not unusual on Japanese social media,” the Meta Oversight Board wrote in its explanation. “It was unlikely to cause harm.” The board considered the use of “ja” in the poster to help determine its figurative meaning.
The board said that despite speaking Japanese and understanding local content, the moderators who removed the post “made a mistake.” It recommends Meta clarify its internal guidelines and offer more guidance to reviewers on “how to evaluate language and local content.”
Meta's Oversight Board added that the Violence and Incitement policy includes a rule banning the phrase “death to” against “high-risk individuals” and is not clear enough. It said that while the company's policy rationale suggests that context matters in assessing threats, its reviewers are not empowered to evaluate cases involving the phrase “death to.” The board echoed its Recommendation 2022 for Meta to explain that rhetorical threats using the phrase are “generally permitted, except when directed at high-risk individuals, and to provide criteria for when threatening statements directed at heads of state are permitted to protect rhetorical political speech.”
Additionally, the board recommended that Meta clarify how the policy differs for “public figures” and “high-risk individuals.” It notes confusion over why threats against public figures are only removed when they are “credible.” Instead, threats against other people are removed “regardless of their credibility.”
The Fiscal Oversight Board has had a busy September, after deciding on just 53 cases last year. Last week, it ruled that the phrase “From the river to the sea” should not be banned and, in a case with some parallels to this one, separated death threats from “aspirational statements” in Venezuela.
