Meta's Oversight Board separates death threats and 'aspirational statements' in Venezuela
The board also criticized Meta’s policy of throttling political content.
Meta’s Oversight Board has weighed in on the company’s content moderation policies in Venezuela amid violent crackdowns and widespread protests following the country’s disputed presidential election. In its decision, the board said that Facebook users posting about the state-supported armed groups known as “colectivos” should have more leeway in making statements like “kill those damn colectivos.”
The company asked the Oversight Board for guidance on the issue last month, noting that its moderators had seen an “influx” of “anti-colectivos content” in the wake of the election. Meta specifically asked for the board’s input on two posts: an Instagram post with the words “Go to hell! I hope they kill you all!” that Meta says was directed at the colectivos, and a Facebook post criticizing Venezuela’s security forces that said “kill those damn colectivos.”
The Oversight Board said that neither post violated Meta’s rules around calls for violence and that both should be interpreted as “aspirational statements” from citizens of a country where state-supported violence has threatened free expression. “The targets of aspirational violence are state-backed forces that have contributed to the longstanding repression of civic space and other human rights violations in Venezuela, including in the present post-election crisis,” the board wrote in its decision. “By contrast, the civilian population has largely been the target of human rights abuses.”
The Oversight Board also criticized Meta’s practice of making political content less visible across its services. “The Board is also deeply concerned that in the context of Venezuela, the company’s policy to reduce the distribution of political content could undermine the ability of users expressing political dissent and raising awareness about the situation in Venezuela to reach the widest possible audience.” It recommended that Meta adapt its policies “to ensure that political content, especially around elections and post-electoral protests, is eligible for the same reach as non-political content” during times of crisis.
The case isn’t the first time the board has waded into the debate surrounding the role of political content on Meta’s apps. Earlier this year, the board accepted its first case related to a post on Threads, which is also expected to weigh in on Meta’s controversial decision to limit recommendations of political posts on the service. The board has yet to publish its decision in the case.
