Meta’s oversight board has made a decision regarding the removal of two Facebook posts urging Australians to vote multiple times in an indigenous rights referendum. The board, which operates independently despite being funded by Meta (META.O), upheld Meta’s action to remove the posts but criticized the lack of clarity in the company’s policy on voter fraud encouragement. The decision was announced on Thursday in a ruling published by the board.
The board acknowledged Meta’s efforts to safeguard the democratic process by removing the posts ahead of the 2023 vote, emphasizing the importance of preventing voter fraud. However, it pointed out that Meta’s public-facing rules regarding such matters were insufficiently clear. The ruling stressed the necessity for Meta to provide users with transparent guidelines to facilitate discussions on public-interest issues related to democratic events.
This ruling coincides with Australia’s government’s intentions to introduce penalties for internet platforms that fail to combat misinformation and disinformation effectively. The backdrop to this decision includes concerns raised during the 2023 referendum, where Australians rejected a proposal to constitutionally recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people amidst fears of misinformation influencing the vote.
The posts in question featured screenshots of partial statements from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on X (formerly Twitter). These screenshots highlighted a specific scenario regarding voting procedures but failed to mention that voting multiple times is illegal in Australia. One user captioned the screenshot with “vote early, vote often, and vote NO,” while another commented, “so you can vote multiple times… they are setting us up for a ‘rigging’… smash the voting centres… it’s a No, No, No, No, No.”
Meta identified and removed these posts through proactive measures, subjecting them to human review. However, the users appealed the decision, leading to the oversight board’s involvement. The board noted that while users were engaged in political discourse, advocating for illegal behavior that infringes on the voting rights of others is unacceptable. It distinguished between protected political speech, such as advocating for a “no” vote, and language that encourages illegal activity, like “vote often” and “smash the voting centres.”
While Meta’s proactive removal of the posts was deemed appropriate, the oversight board’s ruling underscores the importance of clear and transparent community standards in addressing issues related to voter fraud and political discourse on social media platforms. This decision holds significance in the broader context of efforts to combat misinformation and ensure the integrity of democratic processes in the digital age.