Case Description
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.
Comments
It should not be banned, but the context of the post should be taken into consideration.
If the context is educational or awareness driven, this should be okay.
If it is in the context of the promotion of the flag and ideology that it represents then this should not be acceptable.
A person's freedom of speech should also be taken into account.
I support banning the publishing of or displaying the South African apartheid-era flag on Facebook and it promotes division and racial hatred.
You cannot and should not erase history because you disagree with it.
Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for all.
If one group may present their flag, whatever it may be, then all must have the same freedom.
One of my ancestors was killed by Dingaan. That does not give my the right, nor the desire, nor the imclination, to be angry with a Zulu man anywhere in the world, who wishes to put the Zulu flag, or whatever other flag, on his e-mails, or his car bumper, or his T-shirt. Why should it? I am not a child.
This country is flaunted as the "rainbow nation". All colours are present in any and all rainbows, and are an integral part of all rainbows. To expect one colour to be the dominant colour, or to be able to grind another colour for being present and valid and beautiful, or to want to remove a colour from a rainbow, is utter childish ignorance, lack of perception and of wisdom. All colours are a combination of other colours, and cannot therefore exist without other colours. That is a scientific fact known since time immemorial.
Let's become positive and intelligent citizens of our country, accept each other, enjoy eachother's culture, food, music, language and traditions. That is what makes a world interesting, exciting, worth visiting and investing in. The alternative is a grey, tastelss mud.
The old South African flag represents a time in the developmental history of South Africa.
It incorporates or recognizes the amalgamation of the three foundational colonial powers and was itself developed to communicate national unity after a decimating conflict between Boer and British forces.
Censorship of this flag, and a deletion of posts with it, amount to crude, heavy-handed and ineffective attempts at sanitizing and rewriting our history.
Whilst it is true that some people associate the flag with racial issues and the policy of apartheid, the flag was a national flag at that time. It represented a nation and not a particular party in government (the National Party).
Banning the flag accentuates and perpetuates these racial attitudes and tropes.
Conversations and discussions are always preferrable than machine generated censorship
If Meta is seriously considering this ban, will Meta also be considering the banning of all other flags of truly repressive and genocidal regimes? How about the present flags of North Korea and the Soviet Flag from the Stalinist era? Shall they also be removed? Shall all pictures of Swastikas be purged from Meta instead of addressing the attitude or context of the posting?
This proposed ban appears to be an exercise in virtue-signaling.
It should be allowed as it is part of our cultural history. The ANC is busy with a systematic cleansing of our history and forcing their propaganda on us.
WE WOULD LIKE A NEW FLAG!
ONE THAT REFLECTS OUR VISION OF WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR COUNTRY GROW INTO. WE'D LIKE OUR FLAG TO INCLUDE A VISION OF A COUNTRY FOCUSED ON SUSTAINABLE LIVING FOR ALL IT'S CREATURES. HUMAN & ANIMALS (LAND & OCEAN) ALIKE.
SUSTAINABLE LIVING IS A PRIORITY NOW. SAVING OUR PLANET IN ORDER TO SAVE ALL THOSE THAT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENJOY OUR EARTH.
WE DO NOT WISH IT TO INCLUDE GENDER PUSH, RELIGION PUSH, RACE PUSH, POLITICAL PUSH... BUT RATHER A MESSAGE THAT WE ALL NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO SAVE THE ONLY HOME WE HAVE - EARTH!
Displaying the old South African flag cannot be prohibited, for one simply cannot erase history. Similarly, one cannot prohibit the display of the swastika from Hitler's era, for it is part of history that happend and subsequently cannot be erased.
South Africa's national anthem of today contains the Stem, which was the national anthem under the old flag. The old flag does NOT promote hate, just as singing the Stem by all South Africans today doesn't!
By considering the display of the old flag as a form of hateful intention is a personal misplaced or uninformed opinion of the viewer. Such an opinion is NOT a fact! An opinion cannot erase history. An opinion is but one of many; as some may hold an opinion of hatred, others hold an opinion of self-determination, which is a noble and internationally accepted sovereign right of all nations. Irrespective of opinion, displaying history and subsequently symbols from its era does not make any opinion a fact!
The opinion that displaying the old South African flag constitutes a form of hatered, stems from the complainant(s)' own current hatred and/or grudge held against people who have ended the regime of that flag 30 years ago already. The complainant(s)' hatred and grudges today constitutes no reason or right to prohibit the display of history and its symbols.
I do not agree with banning a flag, this country has far more serious things to concern itself with. Start down that road and there will be calls to ban all flags from the "struggle" as I am sure many will find them offensive. Over time people will forget or lose interest. I try to think what Archbishop Tutu would advocate in these situations, he was a man of the people, of all of the people.
Were all people who served und the old flag confirmed racists? No they were not. For some it stands as a symbol of oppression and for some it identifies a significant period in their lives. Nelson Mandelas grand children attended the same school as me the old flag flew there. It was a fully inclusive and multiracial school. Should the school now be considered part of the racist regime?
Myself and all I have spoken to have no idea or why there is even a remote idea that the OK symbol is a symbol of white power, that is a plain hoax and borders on childish.
The fact is after 3 decades of democracy SA is still a country divided. This is another case of those that did not experience apartheid speaking as someone who lived during its height. 3 decades of democracy and SA still has laws in place that discriminate against so called "Born Free" individuals and whether they can be employed.
There are bigger issues in SA.
No do not ban the old South African flag.It should not even be a question that flag symbolizes a time when South Africa was a prosperous country with a low crime rate and a safe country to be in. People wanting to ban the flag are those wanting people and the world to forget what a safe beautiful low crime rate prosperous country South africa once was.That flag is a important part of south africas history and history can and must not be forgotten . So NO DO NOT BAN THE FLAG
The old South African flag is a part of history. It was first flown in 1928 and replaced in 1994. Under the old flag South Africa fought along side the allies in the second world war amongst other things. Apartheid came into law in South Africa in 1948 - so the flag has twenty years of history before Apartheid. Apartheid was defeated by a democratic vote and the entire election system was replaced by a free and fair electorial 1 man 1 vote system (with ID Documents) If we take away the flag from our history, how do we ever learn from it, how do we learn from our mistakes if we hide them away and don't talk about them. The old South African Flag needs to be out there so that people will ask questions, why is there a new flag etc. The Jewish people make a point of remembering the holocaust, certainly not to celebrate it....but to make sure it does not happen again. As u user you have a choice as well, if you don't like something on a page, then don't go there - you are free to choose the pages you visit, please stop trying to make everyone comply to your sensibilities.
It's part of our culture, why should we be ones that must bend the knee everytime. The old flag doesn't represent apartheid it represent a unites country that fought to be independent. The only reason for banning the flag is to suppress the minority.
The old South African flag should NOT be banned from Facebook. Banning it will do more harm than good. We do not ban Swastikas as made and designed by the Nazi party. We should show history in all it glory..and for all the gruesome things that happened so that we can learn from it. Hiding history is like hiding a life lesson which makes all of us, and future generations poorer and bound to repeat the same mistakes of previous generations.
Erase history, repeat history
Apartheid lasted for 47 years.
The country has had majority rule for 30 years.
Acknowledge the past, look to the future
The flag that is being referred to as 'the post-apartheid flag', has in fact, NOTHING to do with apartheid. That flag is a symbol of Afrikaner heritage and history and we are proud of our heritage. Many South Africans still view it as a symbol of apartheid, but it really is time to move on. I was very little during the 'apartheid era' and can't remember much. I do however firmly stand against racism and apartheid, BUT, that flag is a part of my Afrikaner history and I am very proud of our history. It has nothing to do with apartheid, really people, just move on already.
The old South African flag used the colors blue, orange, and white and had the flags of the Transvaal and Orange Free States and also contained the British Union Jack. The Afrikaner population had to fight to escape the British rule.
The old flag is a part of my Afrikaner history and I, like many other South Africans, are proud of it! It is a symbol of our heritage and the fight to escape the british rule. Anyone who views the old flag as 'apartheid era / discrimanatory / racist', should really get onto the internet and get their history facts straight. Ons vir jou Suid Afrika!
The old south african flag contains the flags in the middle that previously colonised the country.
The flag was created prior to apartheid and the apartheid regime actually wanted to have it changed.
The flag does not represent hatred but the country's history.
To know where you are going, you need to know where you came from. To outright ban it is completely childish.
There is nothing racial implied with the use of the old South African flag. It is part of the history of South Africa. If combined with hate speech, then it should not be allowed.