9/7/24, 14:07 Violence against women | Consejo asesor de contenido companies should consider a range of possible responses to problematic content beyond deletion to ensure restrictions are narrowly tailored ( A/74/486 para. 51). In previous hate speech cases, the Board has looked to the Rabat Plan of Action to assess the necessity and proportionality of removing hate speech. Although it focuses on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, the Board applies the Plan’s framework by analogy to gender-based discrimination. The Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Gender Justice, for example, supports this approach, stating that “sex and gender should be recognized as protected characteristics for the prohibition of advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” In both cases, the Board considered the six Rabat Plan factors (context, identity of speaker, intent of speaker, content, extent of expression, and likelihood of harm including its imminence). The Board finds that these posts pose no risk of imminent harm and thus removal of this content was not necessary. For both cases, the Board finds that the removal of this content was not necessary to protect men from harm. The Board finds both posts to be of public interest and non-violent, directly condemning and drawing attention to gender-based violence. The first post is a factual statement, reflecting that men commit gender-based violence. The second post contains a personal opinion and its rationale against the backdrop of global violence against women. Some of the Members that found second post policy violating would nonetheless keep it on the platform for these reasons. For this minority of Members, while the second post violated Meta’s hate speech Standard, the strongly expressed views in question posed no risk of likely and imminent harm and thus removing it was inconsistent with international human rights standards. ( A/68/362 at para 52-53). Therefore, both the removals and the strikes that resulted from Meta’s decisions were unnecessary. The Board is concerned that Meta’s enforcement approach to gender-based hate speech may result in the disproportionate removal of content raising awareness and condemning gender-based violence and intimate partner violence against women, as seen here. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has recommended that companies ensure that enforcement of hate speech rules involves an evaluation of context and the harm that the content imposes on users and the public (A/74/486, para. 58 lit. d). At the same time, the Rapporteur has noted that “the scale and complexity of addressing hateful expression presents long-term challenges and may lead companies to restrict such expression even if it is not clearly linked to adverse outcomes" (A/HRC/38/35, para. 28). While the Board understands that Meta’s approach to gender-based hate speech involves complex policy and enforcement questions, and https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/ig-h3138h6s/?lang=es 17/21