30/9/22, 14:55 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. In October 2020, a user in Brazil posted a picture to Instagram with a title in Portuguese indicating that it was to raise awareness of signs of breast cancer. The image was pink, in line with “Pink October,” an international campaign popular in Brazil to raise breast cancer awareness. Eight photographs within a single picture post showed breast cancer symptoms with corresponding descriptions such as “ripples,” “clusters,” and “wounds,” underneath. Five of the photographs included visible and uncovered female nipples. The remaining three photographs included female breasts, with the nipples either out of shot or covered by a hand. The user shared no additional commentary with the post. The post was detected and removed by a machine learning classifier trained to identify nudity in photos, enforcing Facebook’s Community Standards on Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity, which also applies on Instagram. The user appealed this decision to Facebook. In public statements, Facebook has previously said that it could not always offer users the option to appeal due to a temporary reduction in its review capacity as a result of COVID-19. Moreover, Facebook has stated that not all appeals will receive human review. The user submitted a request for review to the Board and the Board decided to take the case. Following the Board’s selection and assignment of the case to a panel, Facebook reversed its original removal decision and restored the post in December 2020. Facebook claims the original decision to remove the post was automated and subsequently identified as an enforcement error. However, Facebook only became aware of the error after it was brought to the company’s attention through the Board’s processes. 3. Authority and Scope The Board has authority to review Facebook’s decision under Article 2 (Authority to Review) of the Board’s Charter and may uphold or reverse that decision under Article 3, Section 5 (Procedures for Review: Resolution) of the Charter. Facebook has not presented reasons for the content to be excluded in accordance with Article 2, Section 1.2.1 (Content Not Available for Board Review) of the Board’s Bylaws, nor has Facebook indicated that it considers the case to be ineligible under Article 2, Section 1.2.2 (Legal Obligations) of the Bylaws. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-7THR3SI1 4/16