David Bridges
Meta’s Oversight Board has weighed in on its first Threads case and reversed the company’s initial decision and first appeal. Regarding a post about the outgoing Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, using a phrase that translates to “drop dead / die” in English, the board determined the phrase was used figuratively and not as a literal threat or call to violence.
The case was sparked by a Threads post showing a news article about Kishida and his reaction to his political party’s (ahem) “fundraising irregularities.” The caption criticized the Prime Minister, accusing him of tax evasion. The user’s reply demanded an explanation from the government leader and, calling him a tax evader, used the phrase “死ね,” or “drop dead / die.” The post also included “hah” and derogatory language about people who wear glasses. (Watch yourself there, partner!)
The post went largely unnoticed, with no likes. But someone reported it under Meta’s Bullying and Harassment rules. After three weeks, one of Meta’s reviewers determined it instead broke the Violence and Incitement rules. The user appealed, and another reviewer agreed with the first that it violated the policy. One more appeal teed up the issue for the board, which accepted the case and overruled the two human reviewers who removed it.
“In this case, the threat against a political leader was intended as non-literal political criticism calling attention to alleged corruption, using strong language, which is not unusual on Japanese social media,” Meta’s Oversight Board wrote in its explanation. “It was unlikely to cause harm.” The board considered the poster’s use of “hah” to help determine its figurative sense.
The board said that, despite speaking Japanese and understanding local content, the moderators who removed the post were “in error.” It recommends Meta clarify its internal guidelines and offer more guidance for reviewers on “how to evaluate language and local content.”
Meta’s Oversight Board added that the Violence and Incitement policy includes a rule prohibiting the phrase “death to” against “high-risk persons” isn’t clear enough. It said that while the company’s policy rationale suggests context matters in threat evaluation, its reviewers aren’t empowered to assess cases involving the “death to” phrase. The board echoed its 2022 recommendation for Meta to explain that rhetorical threats using the phrase are “generally allowed, except when directed at high-risk individuals, and to provide criteria on when threatening statements directed at heads of state are permitted to protect rhetorical political speech.”
Further, the board recommended that Meta clarify how the policy differs for “public figures” vs. “high-risk persons.” It calls out the confusion over why threats against public figures are only removed when “credible.” In contrast, those against others are axed “regardless of credibility.”
The Oversight Board has had a busy September after deciding on only 53 cases last year. Last week, it ruled that the phrase “From the River to the Sea” shouldn’t be banned and, in a case with some parallels to this one, it separated death threats from “aspirational statements” in Venezuela.
Daniel Mercer
Brandon Fletcher
