4/10/22, 10:31 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. UNGPs). Facebook’s Corporate Human Rights Policy states that this includes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 1. Freedom of expression (Article 19 ICCPR) Article 19 of the ICCPR provides for broad protection of expression, including discussion of human rights and expression which may be regarded as “deeply offensive” ( General Comment 34, para. 11). The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed to all people without discrimination as to “sex” or “other status” (Article 2, para. 1, ICCPR). This includes sexual orientation and gender identity ( Toonen v. Australia (1992); A/HRC/19/41, para. 7). This post relates to important social issues of discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted concerns regarding restrictions on the freedom of expression arising from discriminatory limitations on advocacy for LGBTQIA+ rights ( A/HRC/19/41, para. 65). Article 19 requires that where restrictions on expression are imposed by a state, they must meet the requirements of legality, legitimate aim and necessity and proportionality (Article 19, para. 3, ICCPR). Relying on the UNGPs framework, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression has called on social media companies to ensure that their content rules are guided by the requirements of Article 19, para. 3, ICCPR ( A/HRC/38/35, paras. 45 and 70). I. Legality (clarity and accessibility of the rules) The requirement of legality provides that any restriction on freedom of expression is accessible and clear enough to provide guidance as to what is permitted and what is not. The Board recommended in the "Breast cancer symptoms and nudity" case (2020-004-IG-UA, Recommendation no. 9), the "Ocalan's isolation" case (2021-006-IG-UA, Recommendation no. 10) and the Policy Advisory Opinion on sharing private residential information (Recommendation no. 9) that Meta should clarify to Instagram users that Facebook’s Community Standards apply to Instagram in the same way they apply to Facebook, with some exceptions. In the Policy Advisory Opinion, the Board recommended that Meta complete this within 90 days. The Board notes Meta’s response to the Policy Advisory Opinion that, while this recommendation will be implemented fully, Meta is still working on building more comprehensive Instagram Community Guidelines clarifying their relationship with the Facebook Community Standards and cannot commit to the 90-day deadline. The Board, having reiterated this recommendation on multiple occasions, believes Meta has had sufficient time to prepare for these changes. The unclear relationship between the Instagram Community Guidelines and Facebook Community Standards is a source of continual confusion for users of Meta’s platforms. Currently, while the Instagram Community Guidelines contain a link to the Facebook Community Standard on Hate Speech, it is not clear to the user that the entire Facebook Community Standard on Hate Speech, including the slurs prohibition and exceptions, applies to Instagram. Timely and comprehensive updates to the Instagram Community Guidelines remain a top priority for the Board. With regards to the development of the slurs list, the Board reiterates the point made in the "South Africa Slurs" case ( 2021-011FB-UA) that Meta should be more transparent on the procedures and criteria for developing the list. In this case, Meta explained that it defines slur lists for each established market based on “analysis and vetting from relevant internal partners such as process, markets, and content policy teams.” Meta also stated that its market experts audit the slur list annually, with each term being assessed qualitatively and quantitatively, differentiating “words which are inherently offensive, even if written on their own, and words which are not inherently offensive.” It is unclear to the Board when that annual review takes place, but after the Board selected this case, Meta audited the use of the word “z***l.” Following this audit, the word was removed from the “Arabic” slur list while remaining on the slur list for the “Maghreb market.” The Board does not know whether this audit was part of regular procedures or an ad hoc review in response to the Board’s selection of this case. More generally, it is not apparent to the Board what the qualitative and quantitative assessments in annual reviews entail. Information on the processes and criteria for development of the slur list and market designation, especially regarding how linguistic and geographic markets are distinguished, is not available to users. Without this information, the users may have difficulty assessing what words might be considered slurs, based solely on the definition of slurs in the Hate Speech policy that relies on subjective concepts such as inherent offensiveness and insulting nature ( A/74/486, para. 46; see also A/HRC/38/35, para. 26). https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-2PJ00L4T 8/11