9/7/24, 14:07 Violence against women | Consejo asesor de contenido moderators. Meta informed the Board that “it can be difficult for at-scale content reviewers to distinguish between qualified and unqualified behavioral statements without taking a careful reading of context into account.” However, the guidance to reviewers, as currently drafted, limits the possibility of contextual analysis significantly, even when there are clear cues within the content itself that it raises awareness about gender-based violence. Further, Meta stated that because it is challenging to determine intent at scale, its internal guidelines instruct reviewers to default to removing behavioral statements about protected characteristic groups when the user has not made it clear whether the statement is qualified or unqualified. This further reinforces the Board’s concern that moderators would remove non-violating content that condemns or raises awareness of gender-based violence. Meta states that content such as the first post on anti-gender-based violence should be allowed on its platforms, but at the same time the company’s internal guidance to human reviewers seems to lead to the opposite outcome in practice. For the Tier 2 hate speech rules around expressions of contempt relevant to the second post, the Board finds the public guidance around expressions of hate to be clearer. However, it is similarly questionable how Meta allows for condemnation and awareness raising in relation to this rule. Meta again told the Board in its description of this case that it “allow[s] people to raise awareness of violence against women” and to “share their experiences or call out intolerance.” Meta’s position that additional language within the post that negated or nuanced the expression of contempt were not relevant reinforces the Board’s concern that there is no guidance in place to ensure that Meta’s described allowance of awareness raising of gender-based violence exists in practice. II. Legitimate aim Any state restriction on expression should pursue one of the legitimate aims listed in the ICCPR, which include the "rights of others." According to the Hate Speech policy rationale, it aims to protect users from an “environment of intimidation and exclusion” and to prevent offline violence. Therefore, Meta’s Hate Speech policy, which aims to protect people from the harm caused by hate speech, has a legitimate aim that is recognized by international human rights law standards. 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). Social media https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/ig-h3138h6s/?lang=es 16/21