3/10/22, 12:48 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. proposed policy changes. Ensure that users are notified when their content is removed. The notification should note whether the removal is due to a government request or due to a violation of the Community Standards, or due to a government claiming a national law has been violated (and the jurisdictional reach of any removal). Clarify to Instagram users that Facebook’s Community Standards apply to Instagram in the same way they apply to Facebook. Include information in its transparency reporting on the number of requests received for content removals from governments based on Community Standards violations (as opposed to violations of national law), and the outcomes of those requests. Include more comprehensive information in its transparency reporting on error rates for enforcing rules on “praise” and “support” of dangerous individuals and organizations, broken down by region and language. Full case decision 1. Decision summary The Oversight Board has overturned Facebook’s original decision to remove an Instagram post encouraging people to discuss the solitary confinement of Abdullah Öcalan, a person designated by Facebook as a dangerous individual. After the user appealed and the Board selected the case for review, Facebook concluded that the content was removed in error and restored the post to Instagram. Facebook explained that in 2018 it “inadvertently failed to transfer” a piece of internal policy guidance that allowed users to discuss conditions of confinement of designated dangerous individuals to a new review system. The Board believes that if Facebook were more transparent about its policies the harm from this mistake could have been mitigated or avoided altogether. Even without the misplaced internal policy guidance, the Board found that the content never should have been removed. It was simply a call to debate the necessity of Öcalan’s detention in solitary confinement and its removal did not serve the aim of the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy “to prevent and disrupt real-world harm.” Instead, the removal resulted in a restriction on freedom of expression about a human rights concern. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-I9DP23IB/ 5/21