4/10/22, 10:47 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. I. Oversight Board decisions: The most relevant prior Oversight Board decisions include: Case decision 2021-002-FB-UA (“Zwarte Piet”): In this case, a majority of the Board noted that “moderating content to address the cumulative harms of hate speech, even where the expression does not directly incite violence or discrimination, can be consistent with Facebook’s human rights responsibilities in certain circumstances.” The Board also found that “less severe interventions, such as labels, warning screens, or other measures to reduce dissemination, would not have provided adequate protection against the cumulative effects of leaving (...) content of this nature on the platform.” Case decision 2020-003-FB-UA (“Armenians in Azerbaijan”): In the context of language which targeted a group based on national origin during conflict, the Board noted that “left up, an accumulation of such content may create an environment in which acts of discrimination and violence are more likely.” Case decision 2021-011-FB-UA (“South Africa Slur”): The Board decided that it is in line with Meta’s human rights responsibilities to prohibit “some discriminatory expression” even “absent any requirement that the expression incite violence or discriminatory acts”. II. Meta’s content policies: The policy rationale for Facebook’s Hate Speech Community Standard states that hate speech is not allowed on the platform “because it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and, in some cases, may promote real-world violence.” The Community Standard defines hate speech as a direct attack against people on the basis of protected characteristics, including race, ethnicity, and/or national origin. Meta prohibits content targeting a person or group of people based on protected characteristic(s) with "dehumanizing speech or imagery in the form of comparisons, generalizations or unqualified behavioral statements (in written or visual form) to or about: [a]nimals that are culturally perceived as intellectually or physically inferior.” Meta also prohibits “[e]xclusion in the form of calls for action, statements of intent, aspirational or conditional statements, or statements advocating or supporting, defined as [...] Explicit exclusion, which means things such as expelling certain groups or saying they are not allowed.” The policy rationale for Facebook's Violence and Incitement Community Standard states that Meta "aim[s] to prevent potential offline harm that may be related to Facebook” and that it restricts expression “when [it] believe[s] there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.” Specifically, Meta prohibits “coded statements where the method of violence or harm is not clearly articulated, but the threat is veiled or implicit,” including where the content contains “references to historical [...] incidents of violence.” III. Meta’s values: Meta’s values are outlined in the introduction to Facebook’s Community Standards. The value of “Voice” is described as “paramount”: The goal of our Community Standards has always been to create a place for expression and give people a voice. [...] We want people to be able to talk openly about the issues that matter to them, even if some may disagree or find them objectionable. Meta limits “Voice” in service of four other values and two are relevant here: “Safety”: We are committed to making Facebook a safe place. Expression that threatens people has the potential to intimidate, exclude, or silence others and isn’t allowed on Facebook. “Dignity”: We believe that all people are equal in dignity and rights. We expect that people will respect the dignity of others and not harass or degrade them. IV. International human rights standards The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights ( UNGPs), endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, establish a voluntary framework for businesses’ human rights responsibilities. In 2021, Meta announced its Corporate Human Rights Policy, where it reaffirmed its commitment to respecting human rights in accordance with the UNGPs. The Board's analysis of Meta’s human rights responsibilities in this case was informed by the following human rights standards: Freedom of expression: Article 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR); General Comment No. 34, Human Rights Committee, 2011; UN Special Rapporteur Report on Hate Speech, A/74/486, 2019; UN Special Rapporteur https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-JRQ1XP2M 5/11