13/3/24, 13:44 g g g Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. g privacy, especially as detained individuals cannot meaningfully consent to such images being taken or shared. Experiencing those images being shared can revictimize and shows how social media can be abused to directly violate the laws of war. This applies not only to the depicted prisoners of war but serves a protective function to prisoners of war more broadly, as well as family members and others who could be targeted. The protection of these rights relates closely to Meta’s values of privacy, safety and dignity. The Board finds that Meta’s Community Standard prohibiting depictions of identifiable prisoners of war is legitimate. b. Meta’s rules on warning screens The Board affirmed that Meta’s rules on violent and graphic content pursue legitimate aims in the “Sudan graphic video” case, and in several cases since. In the context of this case and for other content like it, the rules providing for a “mark as disturbing” warning screen seek to empower users with more choices over what they see online. III. Necessity and proportionality The principle of necessity and proportionality provides that any restrictions on freedom of expression "must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function” and “they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected" (General Comment No. 34, para. 34). The Board’s analysis of necessity and proportionality is informed by the more specific rules in international humanitarian law. According to the ICRC, Geneva Convention III, Article 13 para. 2 requires a “reasonable balance” to be struck between the benefits of public disclosure of materials depicting prisoners of war, given the high value of such materials when used as evidence to prosecute war crimes, promote accountability, and raise public awareness of abuse, and the potential humiliation and even physical harm that may be caused to the persons in the shared materials. Further, the ICRC notes in its guidance towards media that such materials may be exceptionally disclosed, if there is a “compelling public interest” in revealing the identity of the prisoner or if it is in the prisoner’s “vital interest” to do so ( ICRC Commentary on Article 13 at (1627)). Meta’s default rule is consistent with goals embodied in international humanitarian law. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-YLRV35WD/ 21/26