Meta Makes Decisive Ruling on the Phrase “From the River to the Sea”

Meta’s Oversight Board has ruled that the independent use of the phrase “From the River to the Sea” does not violate the company’s content policies.

The board, which serves as the highest authority for content moderation decisions within Meta, reviewed three cases involving Facebook posts containing the controversial phrase. This phrase gained prominence amid the aggression on Gaza and global protests against it.

The phrase “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” has been used by many since the onset of the Gaza conflict, while Israel accuses those who chant it of “antisemitism.”

The board concluded that the content did not violate Meta’s rules regarding hate speech, violence, incitement, or dangerous organizations and individuals. Therefore, the posts should not be removed from its platforms.

In supporting Meta’s decision to retain the content, the board’s majority noted that the phrase has multiple interpretations, and people use it in various ways with different intentions.

It further clarified that the specific cases in question included contextual references expressing solidarity with Palestinians, without containing language promoting violence or exclusion.

However, a minority of the board members argued that, given the attacks launched by Hamas on October 7th, which sparked the war, the phrase’s usage in any post could be seen as glorifying the group and violence unless there are clear indications to the contrary.

The phrase “From the River to the Sea” refers to the geographical area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, encompassing Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

According to AFP, many Israelis and Jews interpret this phrase as a call for the violent destruction of Israel.

In mid-last month, The Guardian reported that Meta has been struggling to moderate content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly in Hebrew, despite recent changes in its internal policies, according to new documents.

Internal policy guidelines shared by a former Meta employee with The Guardian, who worked on content moderation, reveal a multi-layered process for moderating content related to the conflict. However, the documents indicate that Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, does not have equivalent procedures for assessing the accuracy of Hebrew content moderation as it does for Arabic content.

The employee, whose name was not revealed by the newspaper due to concerns of professional retaliation, stated that Meta’s hate speech policies regarding Palestine are unjust. This sentiment has been echoed by pro-Palestinian advocates.

They also pointed out that many frontline workers in the ongoing information battle surrounding the conflict feel hesitant to raise concerns due to fears of retaliation. These claims were reiterated in a recent letter signed by over 200 Meta employees. The former employee suggested that these conditions give the impression that the company’s priorities “aren’t truly about ensuring content safety for the community.”

The documents, which became effective as of this spring, come as Meta and other social media platforms face criticism for their approach to handling the divisive conflict, where language choices and moderation during fast-paced news events can have significant consequences.

In June, a coalition of 49 civil society organizations and prominent Palestinians sent a letter to Meta accusing the company of “aiding and abetting governments in committing genocide” through its content moderation policies.

Kat Knarr of the American Campaign for Palestinian Rights, which organized the letter, stated: “When Palestinian voices are silenced on Meta’s platforms, the consequences for Palestinian lives are immediate and severe. People don’t hear about what’s happening in Palestine, but they hear dehumanizing propaganda. The consequences are dire and very real.”

The disparity in content moderation based on language has been a long-standing criticism of Meta. Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, testified before a U.S. Senate committee that while only 9% of the social media giant’s users speak English, 87% of its misinformation budget was allocated to this demographic.

Meta has disputed this figure, stating in a statement that the majority of its third-party fact-checking partners review content from outside the United States and that the figure reflects its work on misinformation.