केस विवरण
In May 2024, two Facebook users separately posted images showing the former national flag of South Africa. This flag, which became associated with the country’s apartheid system of racial segregation, was replaced in 1994 by a new national flag. The two Facebook posts were shared in the run-up to South Africa’s General Election on May 29, 2024, during which immigration, inequalities and unemployment were key issues.
The first post shows a soldier carrying the pre-1994 flag. The image, which appears to have been taken during the apartheid years (1948-1994), is accompanied by a caption encouraging others to share the post if they “served under this flag.” The content was viewed more than 500,000 times and shared more than 5,000 times. The post received numerous comments, with many suggesting that South Africa was a safer country during apartheid, while others emphasized the suffering experienced by people during those years. By the time the Board selected this case, three users had reported the content to Meta, for hate speech and violence. Following human review, the content was found to be non-violating and left on Facebook.
The second post contains multiple images of a previous era, including the country’s former flag, a nostalgic picture of a seaside theme park, a packet of candy cigarettes, a toy gun and a black man on a bicycle ice cream cart, with white children next to him. The caption expresses fondness for the previous era and asks the audience to “read between the lines,” followed by a winking face and an “OK” hand emoji. While in most instances, the OK hand emoji is used by people to show approval or agree that something is okay, this symbol has been adopted by some as an expression of white supremacy. The post was viewed more than 2 million times and shared over a thousand times. Many users commented on the post, positively describing life during apartheid, including on law and order. Other comments noted that it was not a good time for all. Within a week of posting, 184 users reported the content, mostly for hate speech. Some of the reports were reviewed by human reviewers, who determined that the content did not violate the Community Standards. The remaining reports were processed through a combination of automated systems and prior human review decisions. The content was kept up on the platform.
When the Board selected this content, Meta’s policy subject matter experts reviewed both posts again and the company confirmed that its original decisions to keep both pieces of content up on Facebook were correct.
In their statement to the Board, the user who reported the first post stated that South Africa’s former flag is comparable to the German Nazi flag and that “brazenly displaying” it “incites violence” because the country is still reeling from the impact of “this crime against humanity [apartheid].” The user also stated that sharing such images during an election period can encourage racial hatred and endanger lives. Similarly, the user who reported the second post explained that the “context of the post suggests” apartheid was a “better time” for South Africans and that such use of the flag is illegal. The user also emphasized how the former flag represents oppression.
The Board selected these cases to address the issue of glorifying or praising hateful or racial supremacist ideologies, including through the use of symbols, especially in the lead-up to an election. Such content can have public interest value, e.g., to raise awareness about or condemn an issue, but it may also be used to glorify or incite racial discrimination or violence. These cases, which provide an opportunity to evaluate Meta’s current approach on this issue, fall within the Board’s strategic priorities of Elections and Civic Space and Hate Speech.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The sociopolitical context in South Africa, in particular the nature of public and political discourse around apartheid and racial inequality, including in the lead-up to the 2024 elections, the impact of displaying the apartheid flag since 1994, and the role of supremacist and apartheid-sympathetic groups in social and political life.
- The coded use of online symbols, such as the ‘OK’ hand emoji and other symbols adopted by white supremacist groups on social media in South Africa and/or globally.
- Approaches to moderating visual content involving potential implicit attacks against groups with protected characteristics, particularly in contexts where there is a history of racial segregation.
- Risks of over-enforcement of removing hate symbols at scale, as well as analysis of least intrusive means among digital tools (beyond removals and geoblocking) that are available in content moderation to address hate symbols.
As part of 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 these cases.
टिप्पणियाँ
To ban or not?
If you want to ban the SA old regime flag on Facebook or Social Media, you'll have to ban many others as well: All terrorist groups and countries like Afghanistan. Palestinian, North Korea, to name a few. Not to mention all the rubbish from the Olympics in Paris as well as woke rubbish and more.
Yes, the world is evil and we did it. Social media cannot be responsible for it all, but can try to control hate speech, racism, terrorists, woke rubbish and naked men who call themselves women....
Something to think about!
It should NOT be banned.
The flag is part of the history of South Africa and represents what was then a legal and respected icon for South Africa. It was used proudly in wartime and peacetime and all citizens revered it before it became tarnished.
If we outlaw the flag, will it make any positive impact, I doubt. So must we the ban traditional clothing too from those who can in future decide appropriateness. What does banning the flag teach our children and grandchildren? What will they ban of ours today. Grow up get over yourselves and get on either life....
The old South African flag is part of our history. What is the point of banning it on social media? Is the old USSR flag also banned on social media?
There is nothing wrong with displaying the old S.A. flag, just as there is nothing wrong displaying old flags of the U.S.A. History is history, good and/or bad, none of us can go back and change the past or make as if it does not exist or did not happen. There is no disrespect in displaying old things, nostalgia, from years ago. It does not carry any political feeling/meaning with it.
As Gayton McKenzie said a while ago, why do people want to keep living in the past. We are in 2024, so move on. My opinion Whether people want to display an old flag, new flag or whatever symbol, as long as there's No Violence or Hate speech involved, just let them be. We are all different, so learn to accept and live with one another in peace, tolerance and love. There are far to much hatred in this world and that is the Main thing that should be addressed, not people's preference, religion, etc.
The "old" South African flag was not designed as an instrument of nor to depict the evil that arose from Apartheid.
What started as a form of administration evolved into the Apartheid that we all remember, but the original purpose of the system was not to physically hurt or to lead to the death of anyone or any group of people.
With the settlers came a history of management that was socially organised & had been tried, tested & refined over hundreds of years - probably thousands of years - since the first systems of writing enabled governments to govern by, essentially, knowing the size of their tribe so that they could supply their basic needs. Management was carried out by governors because the tribe was not concentrated in one area : this required the devolving ofThese skills seem not yet to have been acquired by the peoples that the first settlers encountered, so it was natural to them to start organising the people that they encountered & amongst whom they intended to live - to "civilise" them according to a system that used annual planning, a monetary system, law & order & other aspects of the administration of their experience. History shows us that there were greedy people who wanted more than their fair share of what was available &, in an organic way, warped the laws so that they were assured of dominance. Being a minority group with all the power that one does not wish to lose comes with some force, unfortunately, & brutality crept into the system without restraint as the lawmakers, who also belonged to the minority group, also feared for the loss of their livelihood. This was all complicated by the zeal that some had to get out into the new-found lands & spread their religion for the "saving of the souls of the native people".
If one sees the progression from the age of "colonisation" as a Universal Western philosophy & religion, there was not clear evil intent, although there were people - just as today - who will do anything to cling onto the power that they have & to add more to it.
If we ban everything that we do not like or which has a dark side, there would not be a single person or organisation left standing & we should close down the social media sites of Internet. After all, if I go to my preferred religion, I read that I should not judge, lest I be judged; I am free to cast the first stone if my conscience is clear.
If the World spent as much energy as it currently spends on issues - those creating them & then the masses that stir up the vortex to carry themselves & many who do not even understand the issue - on charity & caring, we might build a better society. NO-one who is not actively involved in a dispute should post about it unless they have had some revelation of some new, plausible solution, as merely waving flags & shouting slogans on the Internet only increases the already over-supply of Hate in the World.
We cannot heal hurt by hate or denial & we should be able to see images without letting them own us; see the images for what they are, but remember that they are sometimes placed by people who are the agents of Hate & be the bigger person - walk away.
May Peace be always with you.
Banning a flag itself is not the way to prevent hate. There are many legitimate reasons for showing one.
Where it is displayed in a hateful context that is wrong, but it is the context that should engender the ban not the flag itself.
We aspire to be a mature and tolerant society. Let us seek to look beyond the symbol and at the intent.
Social media badly need more effective control, both at a personal and societal level. We need to work on how to do that. But the solution needs to be far more subtle and valid than just banning specific things. It is expressions of hate themselves that need to be tackled - preferably by tackling the hatred itself if we can.
Let’s get to work on this. It is a major social priority.
No, it should not be banned.
History cannot be denied. We may not have liked what happened during certain eras, such as Nazi's for example and the emblem that associates the wars with the crime with the time.
It happened and by trying to prevent transparency banning a flag doesn't fix wrongs of the past. Neither does it allow future generations to understand what was done, what works, what doesn't work and what should be prevented from happening again.
Double standards are the problem here. Why not ban the Union Jack as well because of slavery, the oppression of the Irish, or the many crimes against humanity committed by the English during the Anglo-Boer War? Why not ban the current Zimbabwean flag? People have suffered far more under that regime. This is not motivated by love and concern for the poor, but by virtue signalling
What on earth for? That flag was honoured by generations and will be for generations to come! There are by far more greater issues to be addressed!! The country doesn't need to be reminded antagonistically of it's past but should focus on rebuilding to the standard as under the old vier kleur. Apartheid is long behind us!!
The apartheid era in South Africa is an historical fact regardless of the rights and wrongs thereof. Just like the racial segregation and discrimination under French rule in Algeria, the Jim Crow laws in the US and many more. Will you ban the American and French flags also?
Presently the current South African flag is aligned to corruption/ poorly managed state enterprises. Universities and public schools are in a mess. The current flag is a disgrace. Honestly I have no objection to so called apartheid flag. Maybe if the government did something for the nation instead of changing streets and places names and worrying about flags. I will never submit to the current flag
Here’s the revised objection, addressing your concerns about overreach and broad implications without specifically framing the flag as an apartheid symbol:
---
**Subject:** Objection to Potential Censorship of Historical Flags and Broader Implications for Content Moderation
To the Meta Oversight Board,
I am writing to express my objection to the potential censorship of historical flags on Meta’s platforms. While I understand that certain symbols evoke strong emotional reactions, banning the display of a flag associated with a particular era introduces complex risks around freedom of expression, historical reflection, and content moderation. Importantly, this flag—while controversial—represents more than just one part of history and was not exclusively a symbol of apartheid. Imposing restrictions on it raises troubling questions: If a flag from a certain period is banned, what comes next? Will we see architecture, technology, books, or films from the same period censored?
1. The Importance of Preserving History in All Forms
Flags, like art, architecture, literature, and technology, reflect the realities and complexities of their time. They are part of a society’s heritage, offering insight into its evolution and struggles. Removing certain symbols from public platforms risks erasing important aspects of history that should be examined, discussed, and understood, not hidden. Censorship of historical symbols, regardless of their complexity, may result in historical amnesia, preventing society from learning and growing through reflection.
2. A Slippery Slope in Content Moderation
Censoring a historical flag opens the door to further content moderation overreach. If a flag is banned today, what will stop similar restrictions on other historical elements—such as architecture, literature, films, or inventions from the same period? History is multifaceted, and symbols can carry different meanings to different people. Some may see the flag as contentious, while others view it as part of a broader cultural or historical identity. Content moderation should be applied with caution to prevent subjective judgments from limiting legitimate public discourse and educational content.
3. The Need for Context-Aware Moderation
Content moderation must carefully consider the context in which symbols are used. A blanket ban on the display of historical symbols fails to account for the varied purposes of such content—whether it is for education, artistic expression, or historical documentation. Context-aware moderation ensures that content intended to promote understanding and awareness is not mistakenly silenced. Moderation policies should focus on intent, removing content that incites hatred while preserving content that fosters learning and dialogue.
4. Global Implications for Digital Platforms
The decisions Meta makes in this case will reverberate across its platforms worldwide, setting standards for how history is handled in the digital space. Banning content associated with certain eras or events risks creating a chilling effect, where individuals and communities feel constrained in their ability to engage with history freely and critically. It is crucial that Meta develops policies that encourage open, nuanced conversations about difficult historical topics rather than suppressing them. Use Nazi Germany as an example. What is next?
5. Striking the Right Balance Between Sensitivity and Free Expression
It is understandable that certain symbols evoke painful emotions. However, the solution is not to remove these symbols from public view but to foster open discussions about their meanings and contexts. South Africa’s approach to similar issues—favoring careful, context-based analysis—can serve as a model. Meta must ensure that its moderation policies do not inadvertently limit freedom of expression under the guise of protecting sensitivities. Doing so would not only compromise historical engagement but also create a dangerous precedent for future content moderation decisions.
In conclusion, I urge the Oversight Board to reject blanket censorship of historical flags and instead adopt a more nuanced, context-aware approach to content moderation. Historical symbols, no matter how complex, should remain part of public discourse so that society can learn, reflect, and grow. A balanced approach to moderation will ensure that Meta promotes understanding and dialogue without compromising on freedom of expression.
Sincerely,
H
I think that it is a petty thing.
Though I understand that some of my fellow South Africans might view the old flag as a symbol of oppression, and I suppose they have a right to their opinion, to me, and many others like me, I believe it is a symbol of unity, of strength, and although they might view it as a symbol of oppression, they thrived. I agree, apartheid was not the way to go. That being said, it was corrected 30 years ago, apartheid, was enforced first by a colonial system, to which we were all subjugated to. Black, White, Indian, Coloured, in some form or another.
Get over it now, it is part of our history. Build a bridge, at some point the Boere, had to forgive the British for their atrocities too. Life goes on, you are occupying yourselves with petty things and missing the bigger picture. I can just lower my head in shame, to think that my fellow countrymen are so easily side tracked.
South Africans associate with the new flag of South Africa for the past 30 years. Displaying the old South African flag only incites animosity and divides South Africans. We have had an extremely successful sporting year internationally and the world knows and recognizes our flag anywhere because of our sporting endeavours.
We should ban the old South African flag from public display. It forms part of our history but it is no longer the flag of South Africa.
The Original South African flag is a part of history and trying to ban it would tantamount to banning anything that someone doesn't like.
It represents a country post British governance and Annexure and a union of people that formed, developed and created one of the best African countries in the world.
Whether people like it or not, It is our history and should be recognized as such. Just because a few select people have an issue with it, then they can seek out therapy to deal with their issues.
I do not believe the old flag should be banned. It is a part of our history.
The colours have a meaning. But it is all symbolic. A flag, any flag, should not be imbued with more power than it actually has. Banning it because /someone/ is offended, or because /someone/ doesn't like it won't change history.
People need to learn to move on. Banning a flag isn't going to help them do that, even if some of them claim it will.
I am a South African grown up with the old flag. I was not a participant in apartheid. So my connectation to the old flag is it represented South Africa. So banning its use is banning our nations freedom of association. Then the display of all flags must be banned if it has a political connectation.
The old South African flag is a historic emblem and should no more be avoided than any other historic flag. As a former British colony we still allow display of the Union Jack, so why should the old South African flag be any different.
The idea that it promotes racism is nonsense and used mainly by politicians to justify their own lack of effectiveness.