Descripción del caso
In April 2025, a Facebook user posted two images with a caption, accusing a Filipino politician of corruption. One photo depicts the politician’s family, including children. The other photo is of an unidentified plane flying over water. The caption in Tagalog accuses the politician of corruption by allegedly hiding the purchase of a plane under his children’s names. It suggests that such acts put his family’s safety and security at risk. It ends with “Hindi ka namin patahimikin” which Meta translated to “We will hunt [you] down.”
On the same day, two different Meta classifiers flagged the content as potentially violating and sent it for human review. The first classifier targets the most viral and potentially violating content. It flagged the post as potentially violating the Violence and Incitement policy. The second classifier flagged the content due to signals indicating potential harm to youth and likelihood of virality. Neither report was prioritized for human review.
Two days later, Meta’s policy team escalated the content for subject matter expert review. The experts did not interpret the final expression in the caption as a threat to commit violence. Rather, they determined that the language suggests an intent to “root out corruption” of the type referenced in the post. The company therefore concluded that the content did not violate the Violence and Incitement policy, as the post did not contain either a direct threat of high-severity violence or a veiled threat. Meta clarified that under this policy they treat content that references “hunting” in a nuanced way, “as hunting may suggest an intent to commit violence but also may be innocuous (synonymous with searching for something or someone).”
Meta also considered that the post did not violate its Bullying and Harassment policy, as the criminal allegation targeted the politician as a public official, rather than a private person, which Meta allows. As a result, Meta left the content on Facebook. After the company identified this case to refer to the Board, Meta’s policy subject matter experts confirmed that the post did not violate any Community Standards.
In referring this case to the Board, Meta stated that it highlights the difficulty in addressing content that contains allegations of corruption against a public official - a form of core political speech - but also references their children and contains language that could be perceived as threatening. Meta also noted that it “may receive pushback from the politicians to remove this type of content, particularly where it references their family members” and that “[t]hese concerns are heightened when the family members are minor children.” However, the company stated that “there are countervailing voice concerns, as people have an interest in discussing perceived corruption by their elected officials, some of which may involve their family members.”
The Board selected this case to examine Meta’s human rights responsibilities in preserving public interest debates on political accountability, especially when discussing alleged corruption by elected officials that involves their family members (including their minor children), while protecting minors from potential incitement, especially when they are explicitly mentioned or visually represented in controversial or hostile contexts. The case also allows the Board to assess Meta's responsibilities when it receives requests from politicians to remove posts similar to this one. This case falls within the Board’s Elections and Civic Space and Government’s Use of Meta’s Platforms priorities.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- Approaches to ensuring political expression, including allegations of corruption, are respected, when they involve rhetorical threats or calls for violence and when they reference family members, especially minors, who are allegedly involved in such acts of corruption.
- Trade-offs and approaches to the protection of rights of children and adolescents, especially when they are explicitly mentioned or visually represented in contexts related to alleged corruption involving children and adolescents by their parents, who are public officials.
- How Meta should manage requests from government authorities and politicians to review or remove posts on alleged corruption of politicians that involve rhetorical threats or calls for violence, and that allegedly concern their family members, especially minors.
- The extent to which rhetorical threats or calls for violence are common in political discourse around the world, especially when discussing allegations of corruption against politicians.
- Insights on interpreting “Hindi ka namin patahimikin” literally or figuratively, particularly in the context of political speech.
In its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to this case.
Public Comments
If you or your organization feel you can contribute valuable perspectives that can help with reaching a decision on the case announced today, you can submit your contributions using the button below. Please note that public comments can be provided anonymously. The public comment window is open for 14 days, closing at 23.59 Pacific Standard Time (PST) on Tuesday 23 September.
What’s Next
Over the next few weeks, Board Members will be deliberating this case. Once they have reached their decision, we will post it on the Decisions page.
