Overturned
Reported AI-Generated Image of Jewish Man With the Devil
June 11, 2026
A user appealed Meta’s decision to leave up a Facebook post containing a digitally created image portraying a Jewish man laughing with the devil.
Summary decisions examine cases in which Meta has reversed its original decision on a piece of content after the Board brought it to the company’s attention and include information about Meta’s acknowledged errors. They are approved by a Board Member panel, rather than the full Board, do not involve public comments and do not have precedential value for the Board. Summary decisions directly bring about changes to Meta’s decisions, providing transparency on these corrections, while identifying where Meta could improve its enforcement.
Summary
A user appealed Meta’s decision to leave up a Facebook post containing a digitally created image portraying a Jewish man laughing with the devil, alongside a caption accusing Jewish people of enabling “evil force[s]” and blackmailing "politicians, media figures and those in positions of supposed authority.” After the Board brought the appeal to Meta’s attention, the company reversed its original decision and removed the post.
About the Case
In November 2025, a Facebook user posted a digitally created image portraying a Jewish man laughing with the devil. The image features two figures facing each other. On the left is a red, horned humanoid with sharp teeth, a depiction commonly associated with demonic or evil characters. On the right is an older, bearded man wearing a kippah, a small, round head covering traditionally worn by Jewish men, and a jacket featuring the Star of David. Both figures have their hands clasped in front of them and appear to be laughing. The image was shared with a caption that claims that, "There is no evil force on this planet that is not enabled by Jews” and that Jewish people blackmail politicians, media figures and authorities. In their appeal to the Board, the reporting user stated that the image is an “AI-generated picture” and that the posting user “is constantly posting antisemitic content.”
Under the Hateful Conduct Community Standard, Meta removes content targeting a person or group of people “on the basis of their protected characteristic[s] or immigration status in written or visual form” with “harmful stereotypes,” including “claims that Jewish people control financial, political or media institutions.”
After the Board brought this case to Meta’s attention, the company determined that the content includes a harmful stereotype by claiming that Jewish people blackmail “politicians, media figures and those in positions of supposed authority,” enabling “evil forces” throughout the world. Consequently, Meta reversed its original decision and removed the content from Facebook.
Board Authority and Scope
The Board has authority to review Meta’s decision following an appeal from the user who reported content that was left up (Charter Article 2, Section 1; Bylaws Article 3, Section 1).
When Meta acknowledges it made an error and reverses its decision in a case under consideration for Board review, the Board may select that case for a summary decision (Bylaws Article 2, Section 2.1.3). The Board reviews the original decision to increase understanding of the content moderation process, reduce errors and increase fairness for Facebook, Instagram and Threads users.
Significance of Case
The content in this case provides an example of the underenforcement of Meta’s Hateful Conduct policy, illustrating how harmful stereotypes targeting Jewish people can appear in both visual and textual forms and how such content may evade enforcement despite violating the policy.
The Board has issued recommendations aimed at improving Meta’s enforcement of its Hateful Conduct policy. In the Criminal Allegations Based on Nationality decision, the Board stated that Meta should “share [with the public] the results of the internal audits it conducts to assess the accuracy of human review and performance of automated systems in the enforcement of its Hate Speech [now Hateful Conduct] policy […] in a way that allows these assessments to be compared across languages and/or regions” (recommendation no. 2). In its initial response to the Board, Meta stated that the company would confidentially share data on enforcement accuracy with the Board rather than make it public. Meta later reported that, “As part of [the company’s] efforts to change how [it] enforce[s] [its] policies to reduce mistakes, [it is] relying more on reports from users instead of proactive detection for many violation types, including Hateful Conduct” (Meta’s H1 2025 Report on the Oversight Board [Appendix]). More recently, Meta explained it has “launched the initial version of a new metric system designed to better assess enforcement precision and reviewer effectiveness” (Meta’s H2 2025 Report on the Oversight Board [Appendix]). According to Meta, the company will “share performance data as the new system matures.” The implementation is still in progress, with data yet to be shared with the Board.
In the Posts that Include “From the River to the Sea” decision, the Board recommended that Meta “implement recommendation no. 16 from the BSR [Business for Social Responsibilities] Human Rights Due Diligence of Meta's Impacts in Israel and Palestine report to develop a mechanism to track the prevalence of content attacking people on the basis of specific protected characteristics (for example, antisemitic, Islamophobic and homophobic content)” (recommendation no. 3). Meta has declined to implement this recommendation. The company explained that, while it remains “committed to improving our enforcement metrics (including prevalence),” it is “facing limitations in resourcing and capacity to pursue this specific work” (Meta’s H2 2024 Report on the Oversight Board [Appendix]).
Implementing recommendation no. 2 from the Criminal Allegations Based on Nationality decision would allow Meta to compare accuracy data across languages and regions, enabling resource allocation to improve accuracy rates where necessary. In addition, allocating resources to implement recommendation no. 3 from the Posts that Include “From the River to the Sea” decision would allow Meta to effectively assess the extent of the surge in antisemitic, anti-Muslim, or racist and other hateful content on its platforms, identifying where and when that surge may be most prominent to better address underenforcement of its Hateful Conduct policy. Finally, a more expeditious implementation of the Board’s recommendations would further contribute to addressing underenforcement. The Board notes that, as of May 2026, 73 of the recommendations it has issued remain “in progress,” with some recommendations pending implementation since 2023.
Decision
The Board overturns Meta’s original decision to leave up the content. The Board acknowledges Meta’s correction of its initial error once the Board brought the case to Meta’s attention.
