‘From the river to the sea’ is not hate speech says Meta’s Oversight Board
A sign reading “From the river to the sea” at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Brussels, Belgium, on Jan. 21, 2024. Photo by Thierry Monasse/Getty Images
By Mira Fox September 4, 2024
“From the river to the sea” is not hate speech or incitement, according to Meta’s Oversight Board’s Wednesday ruling.
The social media behemoth’s Oversight Board had requested experts from a wide variety of interest groups to weigh in on the phrase, which is frequently used in pro-Palestinian protests and posts.
During the open submission period, the Anti-Defamation League submitted a statement arguing strongly that “from the river to the sea” did constitute hate speech given its use in Hamas’ charter, and that it made Jewish and Israeli users feel unsafe. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, meanwhile, argued that the phrase should be allowed in the name of free speech. Academics, journalists and foreign policy experts were also invited to submit statements.
The Oversight Board’s ruling
The Oversight Board, which can overturn Meta’s moderation decisions across its platforms, including Instagram and Facebook, also advises the company on policy changes. It ultimately decided not to advise the platform to limit or moderate use of the term.
The ruling reviewed three specific posts using “from the river to the sea” that had been flagged by users. The Board said that the posts “do not glorify or even refer to Hamas, an organization designated as dangerous by Meta.”
The Oversight Board’s statement said that the posts simply “contain contextual signals of solidarity with Palestinians” without attacking Jewish people or inciting violence. While the phrase “can be understood by some as encouraging and legitimizing antisemitism and the violent elimination of Israel and its people,” the Board wrote, “it is also often used as a political call for solidarity, equal rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people, and to end the war in Gaza.”
The ruling also notes that “both sides have since been accused of violating international law, and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity” and that the debate has taken place largely on social media platforms, making free of political speech an important function of online discourse.
Bigger issues at play
The Oversight Board also took the opportunity posed by a splashy, widely covered case to address larger issues. The lengthy ruling castigates Meta for shutting down CrowdTangle, a tool that provided data analysis on use of Meta’s platforms, arguing that the data it once provided is essential to accurate moderation and understanding of platform usage. Its replacement, the Meta Content Library, has been criticized by the researchers and journalists who relied on CrowdTangle for providing less comprehensive information.
Many of the Oversight Board rulings mention concerns about Meta’s effectiveness and implementation. It has raised questions about the tendency for moderators to remove clearly marked educational or informational posts, such as news articles, while allowing other clearly hateful ones to remain up, and has often criticized the company for refusing to implement the procedures the Board recommends.
The Board’s recommendations for Meta’s policies on “from the river to the sea” do not focus on use of the phrase. Instead, the first recommendation is that “qualified researchers, civil society organizations and journalists, who previously had access to CrowdTangle, are onboarded to the new Meta Content Library” in a timely fashion; the second is that Meta improve the Content Library. The Oversight Board seems less concerned with litigating language than expressing deep concerns about Meta’s transparency.
