According to Hamad, issues, like this one, are handled via multiple phases under the company’s resolution protocol. But in this instance, each phase was marked in Meta’s system as “mitigation,” “resolved,” and “closed,” and each bore the same timestamp with “no reason or justification provided for the instantaneous status changes,” he asserts.
Hamad calls that “highly unusual” adding that there is usually a considerable time-lapse between the phases.
“The lack of rationale provided was also concerning as Meta policy requires written analysis be provided for each phase transition,” Hamad says.
He claims he then posted an update to the Palestine chat regarding a ruling from Meta’s oversight board that had been issued the day before regarding “erroneous content removal.” He says he urged those in the chat to follow proper protocol.
Hamad states he tried to figure out exactly what was going on internally with the Palestine content review, but the employee supposedly in charge never replied to him. He also shared in the Palestine issue chat a particular instance in which a Palestinian photojournalist with 17 million followers had seen his content mistakenly “curbed” by Meta, according to the suit.
