It came to the conclusion that a post that was removed and called for the Prime Minister of Japan to be killed was nothing more than bluster.
Meta’s Oversight Board has provided its opinion on the business’s first Threads case, and it has overturned both the initial ruling and the initial appeal made by the firm. The board came to the conclusion that the phrase “drop dead / die” was used in a figurative sense and not as a literal threat or call to violence in relation to a post that was made regarding the departing Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. The phrase is translated into English as “drop dead / die.”
The case was initiated by a post on Threads that displayed a news report regarding Kishida and his reaction to the “fundraising irregularities” that were committed by his political party. A criticism of the Prime Minister was included in the caption, which accused him of evading taxes. The user’s response requested an explanation from the leader of the government and referred to him as a tax evader. Additionally, the user used the term “㭻ね,” which translates to “drop dead / die.” Additionally, the post used the word “hah” as well as language that was insulting to individuals who wore spectacles. Remember to keep an eye on yourself, partner!
The message received no likes and was mostly ignored by the audience. about Meta’s regulations about bullying and harassment, however, it was reported by someone. Following a period of three weeks, one of Meta’s reviewers came to the conclusion that it violated the regulations regarding violence and incitement. An additional reviewer concurred with the first reviewer’s assessment that the user’s action was in violation of the policy. Another appeal brought the matter to the attention of the board, which ultimately decided to accept the case and overturn the decision of the two human reviewers who had removed it.
“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,” the Oversight Board of Meta noted in its explanation. “In this particular instance, the threat was also intended to call attention to such allegations.” The likelihood of it causing harm was low. For the purpose of determining the poster’s metaphorical meaning, the board took into consideration the usage of the word “hah.”
It was said by the board that the moderators who removed the message were “in error,” despite the fact that they can speak Japanese and grasp the substance of the local language. It is recommended that Meta clarify its internal procedures and provide additional assistance for reviewers on “how to evaluate language and local content.”
In addition, the Oversight Board of Meta stated that the Violence and Incitement policy, which contains a restriction that prohibits the word “death to” against “high-risk persons,” is not as explicit as it should be. The report stated that even if the firm’s policy logic says that context is important in threat evaluation, the reviewers of the company do not have the authority to evaluate cases that involve the word “death to.” The recommendation that the board made in 2022 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 was reaffirmed by the board.
In addition, the board suggested that Meta provide clarification regarding the distinctions between “public figures” and “high-risk persons” in terms of the policy. A discrepancy is brought to light on the reason why threats against prominent figures are only removed after they are deemed “credible.” People who are against other people, on the other hand, are criticized “regardless of credibility.”
Due to the fact that it only decided on 53 instances in the previous year, the Oversight Board has had a very busy September. Earlier this week, it decided that the term “From the River to the Sea” should not be prohibited, and in a case that is similar to this one, it distinguished between “aspirational statements” and death threats in Venezuela.