9/7/24, 14:07 Violence against women | Consejo asesor de contenido clear guidance to ensure that posts like these would not be mistakenly removed. The company’s confusing guidance makes it virtually impossible for moderators to reach the right conclusion. While Meta relied on contextual cues to determine the first post was not violating once it was identified by the Board, the company’s guidance for moderators limits the possibility of contextual analysis significantly. The Board finds that within this context, it is critical that statements that condemn and raise awareness of gender-based violence not be mistakenly removed. The Board’s concern that this may be happening is particularly pronounced given that an allowance for this type of content, while highlighted by Meta, is not communicated clearly to the public and the guidance provided to moderators is confusing. To address this, Meta should clarify its public rules and provide appropriate guidance to moderators that better reflects this allowance. The Oversight Board’s decision The Oversight Board overturns Meta’s decisions to remove both posts. The Board recommends that Meta: Include the exception for allowing content that condemns or raises awareness of gender-based violence in the public language of the Hate Speech policy. Update guidance to its at-scale moderators with specific attention to rules around qualification to ensure that content condemning and raising awareness of gender-based violence is not removed in error. Update its Transparency Center with information on what penalties are associated with the accumulation of strikes on Instagram. The Board appreciates that Meta has provided additional information about strikes for Facebook users in response to Board recommendations. It believes this should be done for Instagram users as well. Assess how its current review routing protocol impacts accuracy. The Board believes Meta would improve content moderation accuracy by adjusting this protocol to prioritize sending secondary review jobs to different reviewers than those who previously assessed the content. * Case summaries provide an overview of the case and do not have precedential value. FULL CASE DECISION 1. Decision summary https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/ig-h3138h6s/?lang=es 4/21