4/10/22, 10:47 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. viral and often reported from being escalated. The case also exposed flaws in Meta’s reporting and appeal process. The Board is concerned about Meta not notifying users when the company changes its decision in a case. A user who reported content which is initially evaluated as non-violating and left up, and then later evaluated as violating and removed, should be updated on this. 8.2 Compliance with Meta’s values The Board finds that removing the content is consistent with Meta’s values of “Voice,” ”Dignity,” and “Safety.” The Board recognizes that “Voice” is Meta’s paramount value, but the company allows for expression to be limited to prevent abuse and other forms of online and offline harm. Those targeted by dehumanizing and negative stereotypes may also see their “Voice” affected, as their use may have a silencing impact on those targeted and inhibit their participation on Facebook and Instagram. By allowing such posts to be shared, Meta may contribute to a discriminatory environment. The Board considers the values of “Dignity” and “Safety” to be of superseding importance in this case. In this regard, the Board noted the continuing increase in cases of physical violence against ethnic Serbs in Croatia ( 2021 CoE Fifth Opinion on Croatia, para. 116). This justified displacing the user’s “Voice” to protect the “Voice,” “Dignity,” and “Safety” of others. 8.3 Compliance with Meta’s human rights responsibilities The Board concludes that removing the post from the platform is consistent with Meta's human rights responsibilities as a business. Meta has committed itself to respect human rights under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights ( UNGPs). Its Corporate Human Rights Policy states that this includes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR). Freedom of expression (Article 19 ICCPR) The scope of the right to freedom of expression is broad. Article 19, para. 2, of the ICCPR gives heightened protection to expression on political issues and discussion of historical claims (General Comment No. 34, paras. 20 and 49). ICCPR Article 19 requires that where restrictions on expression are imposed by a state, they must meet the requirements of legality, legitimate aim, and necessity and proportionality (Article 19, para. 3, ICCPR). The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has encouraged social media companies to be guided by these principles when moderating online expression. I. Legality (clarity and accessibility of the rules) The principle of legality requires rules used by states to limit expression to be clear and accessible ( General Comment 34, para. 25). The legality standard also requires that rules restricting expression “may not confer unfettered discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with [their] execution” and “provide sufficient guidance to those charged with their execution to enable them to ascertain what sorts of expression are properly restricted and what sorts are not” (Ibid.). Individuals must have enough information to determine if and how their expression may be limited, so that they can adjust their behavior accordingly. Applied to Meta’s content rules for Facebook, users should be able to understand what is allowed and what is prohibited, and reviewers should have clear guidance on how to apply these standards. The Board finds that the Hate Speech Community Standard prohibits implicit targeting of groups on the basis of protected characteristics. This is the case for both dehumanizing comparisons to animals and for statements advocating or supporting exclusion. The errors that occurred in this case show that the language of the policy and the guidance provided to reviewers are not sufficiently clear. In the case, about 40 human reviewers decided the content did not violate the Hate Speech Community Standard. Prior to the final determination by Meta, no human reviewer found the content to be violating. This indicates reviewers consistently interpreted the policy as requiring them to find an explicit comparison between ethnic Serbs and rats before finding a violation. The company first informed the Board that the spirit of the policy prohibited implied comparisons to animals, and later that the letter of the policy covered implied comparisons. The confusion throughout this process evidences a need for clearer policy and implementation guidance. II. Legitimate aim https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-JRQ1XP2M 9/11