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
The Apartheid-era flag should not be banned at all. It is part of the country's history and how it evolved into our history we are all part of now.
Throughout history, new generations will always say things were better 'back then', and demonstrate that with symbols, unique memories, pictures, flags, etc. It is not unique to SA, it is a tendency of the human race.
It is a question of opinion and unresolved enticements, pain and hurt that bring people to a place where they want to make something a symbol of hate and negatively stir emotions with that. Many individuals, races, communities, countries, families, etc. experience situations and trauma that stay with them for their lifetime. The question is whether such experiences should allow for those people to keep on voicing their anger, hurt, unforgiveness, freedom, etc. AND mobilize others - who had no direct and similar experience - to feel the same and to become haters, racists and advocates for the same as well? Even over decades/centuries? What if white Farmers who suffer/ed violence, cold-blooded murder, rape, torture, huge losses, etc. etc. say seeing Julius Malema and anything related to the EFF or MK parties for that matter, like the Red which reminds of blood, promotes racial hatred? Will the leaders of SA be willing to entertain that to the same extent as we are now asked to give opinions on the old flag? Is not all races in SA trying to build a country together towards a new history and togetherness? Trying to remember our past not to keep on firing up racial tension, but so that we do not make the same mistakes? Where are the Leaders who should provide clarity and mature perspectives on all of this with wisdom? Encouraging all races to leave the past - that none of us can change - and move forward while working with the unique culture we have? Where are the community leaders who should get professional help for those who are stuck in the past, being eaten up on the inside by hate, losing their health because of that while instead they can be assisted with wisdom and truth to forgive and contribute to a new tomorrow? Where are the leaders whose mandate it is to SERVE with wisdom and responsibility for the good of all citizens? Maybe those leaders are using their own people to play a game for their own gain and fame, and not for the bigger picture of us living and working together for the greater good. No-one stuck in the past with hate and trying around every corner to blame and criticize dead things like flags and emoji's (which all races in this country use) can contribute positively to the greatness of our country. They are just trying to hide their own agendas, unwillingness to forgive and to be the change they want others to bring. We all know that banning the Flag for the wrong reasons will NOT bring a change to the hearts of those who want to blame and keep on using the past to justify their own inability to move forward. They will just find something else to complain and blame about. Please, let all leaders and rule-makers focus on the real issues/problems and utilize time and effort into that. The heart of the matter is a matter of the heart!
Encourage free speech and stop trying to demonize history. There are always two sides to a story and to kill the debate will not help to prevent the mistakes and injustices of the past.
It is history.
Does Facebook now want to ban history.
Ridiculous.
I am a 52 year old White Male South African. I can trace my heritage back 10 generations in South Africa to the landing of Jan van Riebeek. They arrived to a wild un-developed continent with no roads, no rail network no law and order.
My forefathers built this country. They struggled adversity, they fled oppression and religious persecution in Europe.
The pre 1994 flag of the Republic of South Africa represents the independent states of Southern Africa that were forced to unite as the Union of South Africa and then later as the Republic of South Africa in 1961. These states were the South African Republic also known as Transvaal, The Orange Free State Republic, the Natal Colony and the Cape Colony.
The post 1994 flag of the ‘Democractic’ South Africa is only a modified ANC flag. It means nothing to me other than one that represents the ANC that has done its best to exterminate white people in South Africa through taking away their generational wealth be it farms, business or whatever it is that was handed down from one generation to the next.
If I ask anyone younger than 30 about the Republic of South Africa flag all they can say is it’s the ‘Apartheid’ flag. Our children are taught in schools to hate their own heritage and the sacrifices their forefathers gave to build the country they now live in. The reason for this is because the ANC has scrubbed the history of South Africa prior to 1994 and inserted a fallacious history that exists only in the imagination of ‘cadres and freedom fighters’ Even San cave art does not reflect this fallacious historical narrative pushed by the anti-white ANC regime.
Prior to the banning of the pre 1994 Republic flag, it didn’t bother me whether you flew your flag or not. Today I look at the ANC flag paraded as the South Africa flag and I couldn't care less, it represents a far worse oppression.
The old Republic flag represented law and order.
The New flag represents chaos and destruction
The old Republic flag represented clean rivers and environment.
The New flag represents litter strewn streets and raw sewerage flowing in the rivers.
The old Republic flag represented a functioning infrastructure from rail to policing
The New flag represents corrupt governance and chaos
The old Flag represented those who built this country.
The New flag represents those who are actively stripping this country of its wealth and selling it off to Asia while politicians fill their pockets at the expense of their voter base while re-directing the ‘blame’ to the white South Africans.
The leaders of this country need to concentrate on fixing the mess they made or get out of the way for someone that can, instead of trying to ban what they don’t agree with.
As a 52 year old white male, the ‘good’ things I have experienced under the racist ANC rule is the loss of my career due to Affirmative Action. The loss of my family farm because of anti white policies that target white land owners. The same farm that still stands fallow 20 years later and actually costs the tax payer money with the grant system that has turned that farm into a litter strewn mess.
An inability to build a decent business because BEE and BBBEE hog ties me because of racial anti white business policies. I have nothing more to loose than life itself and as the Bible says 'absence of body is presence with the Lord.'
So the difference between the old Republic flag and the new ‘democratic’ ANC flag of 1994 is that the colour of the skin is more important post 1994. The ANC is so scared of the success of white Christian people in South Africa that they had to create Racial laws and marginalise whites while still keeping the homelands that existed prior to 1994 and not tolerating the same luxury to white South Africans. Their only defence mechanism is to ban a flag that represented the Union of South Africa.
So continue with the smoke and mirrors and running after ghosts and ban the display of the flag of the Republic of South Africa, some cadre will be making millions out of it.
The flag was NOT the apartheid era flag. It was the flag of Union, designed to encompass the erstwhile Boer Republics as well as the British Cape and Natal Colonial territories. It was in fact disliked by the nationalist
party which introduced the Apartheid doctrine only in the 1950's. The Union flag was designed and introduced in 1928, long before Apartheid became policy. You cannot eliminate history by referring to and demonizing a flag using the term Apartheid. My father served under this flag during WW2, South Africa took part in Korea under this flag.
Leave the flag, it is a very integral part of the South African history. A flag itself cannot be hate speech - words might contain hate speech that are placed under the flag in a message might be containing a message of hate from any of the 2 sides' perceivers viewpoints of it. Songs sung and sentences of hate uttered at meetings containing hate speech classifies as exactly that. A flag contains a symbol and is merely to recognize a clan, country or business name.
Posts containing the Apartheid-era flag in historical contest should be allowed, otherwise people may forget or not get to learn about the pervasiveness of this policy, which could contribute to Apartheid deniers ability to erase the events and impact of the era.
However it should not be allowed in current history posts because currently it just gets used as a racist accessory.
I think the flag represent a terrible past, that black want to forget about, we don't need it to be shown constantly on our screen it will remind us of what the flag truelly represent will lead to us to want to avenge our Forefathers mistreatment by the apartheid regime.
Hello
i don't think that the flag should be banned. Its like then saying that Apartheid never happened. The flag should stay to remind us constantly of where we came from and where we are going to, that is to a free and democratic country. Taking the flag down does not change the history of our country. Anyway what happened to democracy, where one is given a choice to follow what he or she wants to do without fear or favor of another. With the country practicing BEE then certain sectors of the population apart from Black South Africans can say the current flag needs to be changed because it favors only African people with BEE rules in the work place and the quote system been implemented at higher education institutions and the work place.
Please do not kill history. If you ban the old flag then what stops you to ban more and more things that you do not like. Personally I love the old flag. It is beautiful and I grew up with it. I never show the flag or do not have the flag but love to see it from time to time. The only flag I have is the new flag.
The old South African flag represents racial discrimination and an era where black people were persecuted; it symbolizes a fascist government who prized Afrikaner superiority. There is no question that it should be banned.
The old apartheid flag is a part of history that cannot be swept under the rug. People lost their lives on both sides therefore I personally think that while the left side still shows their flags the old RSA flag need to be acknowledged.
I don't have a problem with people displaying any flag. Besides, my government has no problem propagating hatred and ethnic superiority towards certain South African groups. Perhaps Meta should rather spend money on actually providing a platform that's of use to people, instead of policing them. Your platform is LITTERED with fake accounts. I once did a test that proved your platform is a cesspool of fake accounts. Might be worth sorting that out. You're probably losing users by the tons, and rightfully so.
To ban the display of the Old South African flag would be hate speech itself. It can be left to die as something from the past. Curtailing historical images is to distort history, it makes bad history disappear even to be forgotten about. It is an attack on freedom of speech
As a Afrikaans speaking South African born right after WWII it is difficult to understand why my history is even under discussion of being deleted!
Why do you have standards, rules and regulations on Facebook that even thinks about deleting history at all?
Ho would you feel is there is suddenly an idea to remove or ban the use of the Confederate flag or evemn the Stars and Stripes on Facebook?
In view of the real history of my country and the movement to undermine any patriotic feeling about it, I demand a better understanding of any political motive or emotion towards filtering any part of my country's history. I have full respect for our new south african flag, but have no respect for the animosity that I detect from politically and even terroristically orientated people against it. It will do nothing towards unifying this country. It may even create the very spark that may ignite the long expected civil war in my country.
Further to this discussion, I can say that my personal evaluation of the Facebook Board's definition of "public opinion" is very biased and has no correlation with the average South African's mindset.
Please do not allow this fallecy to continue any further.
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.
Dear Facebook Oversight Board,I am writing to express my concerns regarding the potential ban on the display of the old South African flag on your platform. While I understand the sensitivities surrounding this issue, I believe there are compelling reasons to reconsider an outright ban.
Preservation of Historical Context
1. Educational Value: The old South African flag is a significant historical artifact that represents a complex period in South Africa's history. Banning its display could hinder educational opportunities about apartheid and its impact on society. It is crucial for future generations to learn from history, including its darker aspects, to avoid repeating perceived past mistakes.
2. Artistic and Journalistic Use: The flag can serve legitimate purposes in artistic and journalistic contexts. Limiting its use solely to academic or artistic expressions allows for critical discussions about its implications without promoting hate speech. This nuanced approach fosters understanding rather than censorship.
Freedom of Expression
1. Right to Free Speech: An outright ban will infringe on individuals' rights to free expression. While it is essential to combat hate speech, a blanket prohibition could set a precedent that undermines broader freedoms. The balance between protecting individuals from harm and upholding free speech is delicate and must be navigated carefully.
2. Cultural Significance: For some, the old flag represents cultural heritage rather than an endorsement of apartheid ideologies. Many Afrikaners in particular, and South Africansin general, view it as part of their identity, which complicates the narrative around its display. Acknowledging this perspective is vital in fostering dialogue rather than division.
Promoting Dialogue Over Division
1. Encouraging Open Discussion: Instead of banning the flag outright, facilitating discussions about its meaning and implications could promote understanding among diverse groups within South Africa. Engaging in dialogue will help bridge divides and foster reconciliation rather than deepening already deep and constantly expanding societal rifts.
2. Addressing Extremism: Banning the flag will inadvertently push extremist views underground, where they can fester without public scrutiny. Allowing open discourse can expose harmful ideologies and provide opportunities for counter-narratives that promote unity and understanding.
In conclusion, while I recognize that some vested interests view potential harm associated with the old South African flag, I urge you to consider a more nuanced approach that balances historical education, freedom of expression, and open dialogue. An outright ban will not only stifle important discussions but also risk alienating segments of the population who view the flag through a different lens.
Thank you for considering these points.
One must remember that many, many South Africans grew up with the former national flag of South Africa as a proud symbol of their country – not as a symbol of apartheid. It is only certain people who call it a symbol of apartheid, as it lends to their rhetoric to keep flaming the cinders of apartheid hate speech burning strongly, to divide people. They want to continue the hate speech and incitement of people towards violence, as it suits their political plans, which is to divide people, not bring them together.
This flag is part of history – so should we just obliterate ‘some’ history just because some people do not like it? No – its factual history! It is part of millions of people’s lives who do not associate it with apartheid at all.
Regarding the ‘OK’ hand emoji being used as a sign of white supremacy – what a lot of rubbish – I have never even heard of it being used in this way – what utter rot. There again, it is those who want to create sinister thoughts and cause mistrust and dislike of anyone different to them in South Africa. They are the ones who suggest innocent things like an ok emoji, is anything but an OK sign. So does that mean the black/brown ‘OK’ emoji is black supremacy – ha ha oh please!
The old RSA flag contains no rasist meaning at all . Seeking different people to live in their area of choice is not derogatory or offensive. So lions must learn to share their territory with hyenas , why? They both like meat and water but distrust each other .what about monkeys and apes , both don't live in the same area due to not trusting each other . Monkeys and apes resemble human appearance the most and humans are just another species of animal. Draw your own conclusions.
Whether Meta (or any other organization) likes it or not, it was (and will always be) MY flag. It is my heritage and my history. I am PROUD of my flag and NOBODY can argue that the country (as a whole) was MUCH better off during the so-called "hated" Apartheid. Not even 1% of the population really understand what Apartheid means. They want to use it in a negative context (which it is not) - we used to be an Apartheid country, in other words, a "set-apart" country. Yes, we were a HOLY (meaning of set-apart) country and Nation !