Posts Displaying South Africa’s Apartheid-Era Flag

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.