Mixed Outcome
After a thorough analysis of the systemic violence that women suffer online, and balancing the conflicting interests at stake, the Board concluded that content that normalizes gender-based violence should be deleted from Meta’s platforms. This approach, a priori, could be seen as one that contracts expression. However, it also has the potential of fostering a safer environment for women online, whose voices are often suppressed—or who must self-censor themselves out of fear of violence. The Board also considered that restricting freedom of expression in this case sought to protect women from discrimination and violence, which are legitimate interests that justify such restrictions.
The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.
According to Article 2 of the Oversight Board Charter, “For each decision, any prior board decisions will have precedential value and should be viewed as highly persuasive when the facts, applicable policies, or other factors are substantially similar.” In addition to Article 4 of the Oversight Board Charter, “The board’s resolution of each case will be binding and Meta will implement it promptly, unless implementation of a resolution could violate the law. In instances where Meta identifies that identical content with parallel context — which the board has already decided upon — remains on Meta, it will take action by analyzing whether it is technically and operationally feasible to apply the board’s decision to that content as well. When a decision or a policy advisory opinion includes recommendations, Meta will take further action by analyzing the operational procedures required to implement the recommendations, considering those recommendations in the formal policy development process of Meta, and transparently communicating about actions taken as a result.”