Board Issues Expedited Decision About Post-Election Violence in Venezuela
September 5, 2024
Today, the Oversight Board has issued an expedited decision covering two cases about post-election violence in Venezuela. These cases, which were announced on 22 August, were decided on an accelerated timeline of 14 days. The Board is required to deliver expedited decisions within 30 days.
Both posts reference state-supported armed groups known as “colectivos” who were involved in the crackdown on protesters following Venezuela’s July 2024 presidential elections.
In the first case, the Board agrees with Meta’s decision keep a post on Instagram. It finds the statement “Go to hell! I hope they kill you all!” to be an aspirational statement about the colectivos that is allowed under the violent actor exception.
In the second case, concerning a Facebook post, the Board disagrees with Meta that in the context of the ongoing crisis in Venezuela, the statement in the post that security forces should “kill those damn colectivos” is a threatening call for action. Given that the user is calling the security forces out for not defending the people from the violence perpetrated by the colectivos, and that security forces are linked to the colectivos, with both engaged in repression of the opposition, they are extremely unlikely to attack, or even to be perceived as willing to attack, the colectivos, who appear to be targeting the people in the video with violence and harassment. This statement is therefore better interpreted, both in the context of the video and the wider crisis in Venezuela, as an expression of fear and frustration on one of the limited avenues for free expression in the country. As such, the Board finds that statements like those contained in this post are thus better understood, in the current context in Venezuela, as non-credible aspirational statements, eligible for the violent actor exception, and overturns Meta’s decision to remove the post.
You can read the Board’s full decision here.
About the Cases
Following Venezuela’s presidential election on July 28, 2024, the country has been in turmoil. After Venezuela’s election authorities announced that current President Nicolás Maduro had won the election in widely disputed results, thousands of people protested, and Maduro in turn called for an “iron fist” response. Online, the government has moved to restrict access to some social media platforms and encouraged citizens to report protesters to authorities. Offline, thousands have been detained and more than two dozen killed, with the colectivos involved in the crackdown.
In the weeks after the election, Meta’s moderators noted an influx of anti-colectivos content. This has raised critical questions about the balance the company must strike in moderating posts that could contain vital political criticism and raise awareness of human rights abuses in a repressive environment yet may also employ violent language during such a volatile period.
Meta’s Violence and Incitement policy prohibits threats of violence, defined as “statements or visuals representing an intention, aspiration, or call for violence against a target.” Previously, Meta acknowledged in its policy rationale that it presumed that “aspirational or conditional threats of violence” that target violent actors are “non-credible, absent specific evidence to the contrary.” On April 25, 2024, Meta updated its rules to include an exception that allows “threats when shared in awareness-raising or condemning context, […] or certain threats against violent actors, like terrorist groups.”
These two cases involve videos posted after the July 2024 presidential election and during the ongoing protests that followed.
In the first case, an Instagram user posted a video in Spanish without a caption. The video appears to be taken from inside an apartment complex showing a group of armed men on motorbikes pulling up to it. A woman can be heard shouting that the colectivos are trying to enter the building. The person filming shouts “Go to hell! I hope they kill you all!” Meta found this content did not violate its Violence and Incitement policy because, in the company’s view, the expression was a conditional or aspirational statement against a violent actor rather than a call to action.
In the second case, a Facebook user shared a video that appears to be taken from a moving motorcycle. It shows a group of men on motorbikes, presumably colectivos, and people running on the street. The man filming shouts that the colectivos are attacking them. The video has a caption in Spanish calling out the security forces for not defending the people and saying that the security forces should go and “kill those damn colectivos.” Meta removed this post under the Violence and Incitement policy as a call to action to commit high-severity violence.
Key Findings
The Board finds that neither post violates Meta’s content policies and that, in the context of the ongoing crisis in Venezuela, allowing both pieces of content is also consistent with Meta’s values and human rights responsibilities.
In the first case, the Board agrees with Meta’s decision to keep the content on Instagram. It finds the statement “Go to hell! I hope they kill you all!” to be an aspirational statement that is allowed under the violent actor exception.
However, in the second case, the Board disagrees with Meta that the statement that security forces should “kill those damn colectivos” in the Facebook post is a threatening call for action. It finds this content similar to the Instagram post and, in the context in which it was posted, should also be understood as an aspirational statement eligible for the violent actor exception. The Board finds that the reference to the security forces, and the user calling them out for not defending the people from violence perpetrated by the colectivos, are both relevant to understanding the content as a whole.
This context makes the threat, which read literally could be understood as a call to action, not credible, and thus aspirational for several reasons. The security forces are linked to the colectivos and are therefore extremely unlikely to attack them. In addition, the colectivos appear to be targeting the people in the video with violence and harassment. In this context, the statement to “kill the damn colectivos” is better interpreted, both the context of the video and the wider crisis in Venezuela, as an expression of fear and frustration on one of the limited avenues for free expression in the country.
As such, the Board finds that statements as those contained in this post are thus better understood as non-credible aspirational statement covered by the violent actor exception. The people who posted the content are private individuals, with no significant influence or authority over others, sharing their direct experiences of the violence or harassment the colectivos are inflicting on them. The targets of aspirational violence are state-backed forces that have contributed to the longstanding repression of civic space and other human rights violations in Venezuela, including in the present post-election crisis. By contrast, the civilian population has largely been the targets of human rights abuses. Removing such content has a significant negative impact on the people denouncing the actions of colectivos, who face enormous constraints on free speech and on holding state and state-backed actors accountable.
The Board is also deeply concerned that Meta’s policy to reduce the distribution of political content could undermine the ability of users expressing political dissent and raising awareness about the situation in Venezuela to reach the widest possible audience. Should this be the case, the Board believes that a policy lever could be included in its Crisis Policy Protocol to ensure that political content, especially around elections and post-electoral protests, is eligible for the same reach as non-political content.
Finally, the Board has repeatedly stressed the importance of evaluating context to ensure political speech is protected, especially in countries in conflict or that face significant constraints on freedom of expression. When, as in this case, Meta designates a crisis situation, it should also use the Crisis Policy Protocol to be more responsive to the realities of how people targeted by state-backed violence express themselves on its platforms, as in the case of Venezuela. Particularly in contexts with repression of democratic dissent, when the threats appear to be non-credible, and the likelihood of such content leading to offline violence is low, Meta should adjust its policy and enforcement guidance accordingly. This should be subject to regular review, with input from potentially affected groups and relevant stakeholders.
Note: The Oversight Board is an independent organization that examines Meta's decisions to remove or leave up content on Facebook and Instagram in a selected number of emblematic cases. The Board reviews and, where necessary, reverses the company's decisions. The Board’s decisions are binding on Meta.
