There is a Meta Control Board was taken about his first Threads work and reversed the company’s original decision and first appeal. As for the post about the resigned Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, the board used a phrase that translates to “fall dead / die” in English, finding that the phrase was used figuratively rather than as a literal threat or call to violence.
Case a. ignited by Topics A post showing a news article about Kishida and his reaction to his political party (sigh) “Fundraising Violations.” The prime minister was criticized for tax evasion. The user’s response demanded an explanation from the head of government, calling him a tax evader and using the phrase “死ね” or “die/die”. The article also contains “hah” and insulting expressions about people who wear glasses. (Take care out there, mate!)
The post was mostly ignored, not liked. But someone reported it under the Meta’s Bullying and Harassment rules. Three weeks later, one of Meta’s reviewers found that it violated the Violence and Incitement guidelines instead. The user appealed, and another reviewer agreed with the first that it violated policy. Another appeal solved the problem for the board, which accepted the case and rejected the two human reviewers who produced it.
“In this case, the threat against a political leader was intended as a non-literal political criticism drawing attention to alleged corruption using strong language not uncommon on Japanese social media,” Meta’s Review Board wrote in its explanation. “It was unlikely to hurt.” The board considered the poster’s use of the word “hah” to determine its figurative meaning.
The board said the moderators were “in error” when they removed the post despite speaking Japanese and understanding local content. It recommends that Meta clarify its internal rules and offer more guidance for reviewers on “how to evaluate language and local content.”
Meta’s Review Board added that a provision in the Violence and Incitement policy prohibiting the use of “death” against “high-risk individuals” was not clear enough. It said that while the company’s policy rationale suggests contextual issues in threat assessment, its reviewers are not authorized to evaluate cases involving the phrase “death.” The board voted for him 2022 recommendation Meta should explain that rhetorical threats using the phrase are “generally permitted except when directed at high-risk individuals, and provide criteria for when threats directed at heads of state are permitted to protect rhetorical political speech.”
In addition, the board recommended that Meta clarify how the policy differs for “public figures” and “high-risk individuals.” It calls for confusion as to why threats against public figures are only removed if they are “credible”. In contrast, those against others are axed “regardless of trust.”
The Supervisory Board had a busy September after that made decisions on only 53 cases last year. He ruled on this statement last week The movie “From River to Sea” should not be banned and while it has some parallels, it separated death threats from “wishful statements”. in Venezuela.
