3/10/22, 12:48 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. should specify in greater detail the “real-world harms” the policy seeks to prevent and disrupt when “Voice” is suppressed. 5. Add to the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy a clear explanation of what “support” excludes. Users should be free to discuss alleged violations and abuses of the human rights of members of designated organizations. This should not be limited to detained individuals. It should include discussion of rights protected by the UN human rights conventions as cited in Facebook’s Corporate Human Rights Policy. This should allow, for example, discussions on allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, violations of the right to a fair trial, as well as extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, enforced disappearance, extraordinary rendition and revocation of citizenship rendering a person stateless. Calls for accountability for human rights violations and abuses should also be protected. Content that incites acts of violence or recruits people to join or otherwise provide material support to Facebook-designated organizations should be excluded from protection even if the same content also discusses human rights concerns. The user’s intent, the broader context in which they post, and how other users understand their post, is key to determining the likelihood of real-world harm that may result from such posts. 6. Explain in the Community Standards how users can make the intent behind their posts clear to Facebook. This would be assisted by implementing the Board’s existing recommendation to publicly disclose the company’s list of designated individuals and organizations (see: case 2020-005-FB-UA). Facebook should also provide illustrative examples to demonstrate the line between permitted and prohibited content, including in relation to the application of the rule clarifying what “support” excludes. 7. Ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement on the proposed policy change through Facebook’s Product Policy Forum, including through a public call for inputs. Facebook should conduct this engagement in multiple languages across regions, ensuring the effective participation of individuals most impacted by the harms this policy seeks to prevent. This engagement should also include human rights, civil society, and academic organizations with expert knowledge on those harms, as well as the harms that may result from overenforcement of the existing policy. 8. Ensure internal guidance and training is provided to content moderators on any new policy. Content moderators should be provided adequate resources to be able to understand the https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-I9DP23IB/ 19/21