Update from the Policy Forum on our approach to ‘Zionist’ as a proxy for hate speech

• We have revisited the issue of speech using the term "Zionists" at various times in recent years, and in March 2024 we examined it through our Policy Forum.

• After hearing input and looking at research from different perspectives, we will now remove speech targeting “Zionists” in several areas where our process showed that the speech tends to be used to refer to Jews and Israelis with dehumanizing comparisons, calls for harm, or denials of existence.

• One question that emerged during our Policy Forum is how to treat comparisons between proxy terms for nationality (including Zionists) and criminals (e.g., “Zionists are war criminals.”). As such, we referred a bundle of cases to our independent Oversight Board that tee up the issue of criminal comparisons. We look forward to any guidance the Board may provide.

We don't allow people to attack others on our platforms based on their protected characteristics, such as their nationality, race, or religion. Enforcing this policy requires an understanding of how people use language to reference those characteristics. The word “Zionist” has layers of meaning based on its origins and usage today, and may also be highly dependent on context. This term often refers to supporters of a political movement, which is not itself a protected characteristic under our policies, but in some cases may be used as a proxy to refer to Jewish or Israeli people, which are protected characteristics under our Hate Speech policy.

We have revisited the issue of speech using the term "Zionists" at various times in recent years, and in March 2024 we examined it through our Policy Forum. As part of this Forum, we consulted with external experts to better understand how people use the word “Zionist” and the circumstances under which it may serve as a proxy for Jewish or Israeli people on our platforms. In total, we have consulted with 145 stakeholders representing civil society and academia across the Middle East and Africa, Israel, North America, Europe, Latin America and Asia. Stakeholders have included political scientists, historians, legal scholars, digital and civil rights groups, freedom of expression advocates, and human rights experts.

We recognize there is nothing approaching a global consensus on what people mean when they use the term “Zionist.” However, based on our research, engagement, and on-platform investigation into its use as a proxy term for Jewish people and Israelis in relation to certain types of hateful attacks, we will now remove content that targets "Zionists" with dehumanizing comparisons, calls for harm, or denials of existence on the basis that “Zionist” in those instances often appears to be a proxy for Jewish or Israeli people.

“Zionist” as a Proxy for Jewish or Israeli people in Hate Speech

We do not allow content that attacks people on the basis of protected characteristics such as nationality, race, or religion, among others. We do allow people to criticize adherents of political affiliations and ideologies. For example, we would remove a post that says, "People of ‘X religion’ are stupid," but we would allow, "Supporters of ‘X political movement’ are stupid." Sometimes people will criticize others using words that aren't explicit references to protected characteristics but are commonly understood to refer to those characteristics by proxy. When such proxy terms are used, we treat those terms as if they explicitly referred to the protected characteristic.

Our longstanding approach to the word “Zionist” under our Hate Speech policy has been to treat the word as a proxy for Jewish or Israeli people in two narrow circumstances: (1) where Zionists are compared to rats, reflecting known antisemitic imagery, and (2) where context makes clear that “Zionist” means “Jew” or “Israeli” (e.g., “Today the Jews celebrate Passover. I hate those Zionists.”). This approach will remain in place. However, we have determined that the existing policy guidance does not sufficiently address the ways people are using the term “Zionist” online and offline.

Going forward, we will remove content attacking “Zionists” when it is not explicitly about the political movement, but instead uses antisemitic stereotypes, or threatens other types of harm through intimidation, or violence directed against Jews or Israelis under the guise of attacking Zionists, including:

• Claims about running the world or controlling the media;

• Dehumanizing comparisons, such as comparisons to pigs, filth, or vermin;

• Calls for physical harm;

• Denials of existence;

• Mocking for having a disease.

You can read the full policy here.

As has long been the case, repeat violations of our Community Standards may result in suspension or removal of the account posting the violations.

Global Feedback

As part of our Policy Forum process, we considered feedback from a variety of sources. Across a range of global stakeholders, we have found sharply contrasting views on how to evaluate attacks on “Zionists.” For many, the term is a proxy for Jewish people or Israelis. This perception is particularly strong when the term is paired with age-old antisemitic tropes – especially those invoking the conspiracy of worldwide Jewish power. Many other stakeholders told us that “Zionists” is a reference to adherents of an ideology, rooted in history, and that today the term is used most often to refer to the Israeli government and its supporters. This perception is particularly strong when the term is used in commentary about Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank.

In addition to these consultations, we conducted multiple rounds of academic literature reviews, qualitative user research, and on-platform research designed to help us understand how people use and understand the term “Zionist” on our platforms. In March, this work culminated with a Policy Forum on this issue. The Policy Forum is where we consider a range of feedback from internal and external experts and discuss potential changes to our policies, informed by these inputs. Our policies evolve over time based on our due diligence, including feedback from these meetings and other inputs such as changes in social norms, language, or product updates. We have worked to address the complex and divided global feedback we obtained through the Policy Forum by specifying that, going forward, we will remove content in the categories listed above, while protecting voice and legitimate free expression in other content about “Zionists.”

Criminality Comparison

One question that emerged during our Policy Forum is how to treat comparisons between Zionists and criminals (e.g., “Zionists are war criminals.”). Our Hate Speech policy prohibits comparisons between any group defined by a protected characteristic and criminals. However, we find that some criminal comparisons that refer to protected characteristics are using those characteristics as shorthand to refer to governments, soldiers, or other specific groups. Such speech is generally political rather than hateful. For instance, people may reference nationality (e.g., “the Americans”) as shorthand for commentary about actions by the American government or military. Similarly, because the term “Zionists” can be used to refer to people on the basis of their nationality (i.e., Israeli people), commentary about “Zionists” may also refer to government or military actions. In order to obtain additional guidance on this question, we referred a bundle of cases to our independent Oversight Board that tee up the issue of criminal comparisons. We look forward to any guidance the Board may provide.

As always when we consider policy changes, we also must determine whether we can reasonably enforce them. While we use both technology and content reviewers to review content that may violate our rules, those tools and reviewers often have limited context and additional nuances can make it harder for us to apply our policies quickly and accurately. This challenge is not new and enforcement of any policy cannot happen overnight – there is a range of content that can potentially violate these policies and it will take time to train our reviewers and systems on these changes.

We are grateful to many partners for their input and candor as we work to keep our platform safe.