Quote:

---

Last week, Reuters reported that Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta Platforms had quietly revised its global hate speech policy in a series of communications to its content moderators. Under longstanding policy, threats of violence and hate targeting specific nationalities have long been banned on Facebook, but under the new guidelines, the company would now permit “violent speech that would otherwise be removed under the Hate Speech policy when: (a) targeting Russian soldiers, EXCEPT prisoners of war, or (b) targeting Russians where it’s clear that the context is the Russian invasion of Ukraine (e.g., content mentions the invasion, self-defense, etc.).”

The policy also allowed for calls for the death of Russian President Vladimir Putin or Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, except where such calls included additional targets or information suggesting they were a credible threat, such as mentioning a specific location and murder weapon. Facebook similarly permitted calls for the death of Iran’s supreme leader last year.

Earlier, during the invasion’s opening days, Meta had quietly relaxed its ban on praise for Ukraine’s Azov Battalion, which had been on the company’s list of prohibited organizations – alongside the Islamic State and Ku Klux Klan – responsible for “serious offline harms” and “violence against civilians.” The battalion has neo-Nazi roots, with its founder suggesting that Ukraine’s national purpose was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans].” Yet, the battalion’s role in defending Ukraine during the invasion led Facebook to permit selected praise for its members.

Meta developed and deployed these policies entirely in secret, with the only public awareness of these shifts coming through internal leaks. The company historically has touted its reliance on outside experts in the development of its policies, raising the question of how extensively it vetted its latest policy changes – especially given its failure to name any outside organizations or experts endorsing them.

Meta’s recent moves raise questions as to whether it will apply similar exemptions to other conflicts around the world. In justifying its new policy, the company argued that “If we applied our standard content policies without any adjustments we would now be removing content from ordinary Ukrainians expressing their resistance and fury at the invading military forces, which would rightly be viewed as unacceptable.” Yet, Palestinians have long argued that their own lands have similarly been militarily invaded and occupied by force – claims that Facebook, with its AI-powered moderation systems, has systematically silenced, as the company has acknowledged.

Under its rationale for Ukraine, would Meta now permit Palestinians to call for the death of those whom they view as Israeli occupiers, or permit praise of Hamas? In a future Afghanistan or Iraq-like conflict, will Meta permit calls for violence against U.S. military personnel and allied civilians?

---