4/10/22, 10:31 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. The submissions covered the following themes: LGBT safety on major social media platforms, the consideration of local context in the enforcement of the hate speech policy, and the changing meanings of Arabic words. To read public comments submitted for this case, please click here. Additionally, as part of ongoing stakeholder engagement efforts, members of the Board held informative and enriching discussions with organizations that work on freedom of expression and the rights of LGBTQIA+ people, including Arabic speakers. This discussion highlighted concerns including: the difficulty in proclaiming a slur to be categorically reclaimed and universally inoffensive when the term in question may continue to be heard as a slur by some audiences, regardless of the intent of the speaker, the problems caused by a lack of input on content policy from LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups and non-English speaking communities, and the risks of content moderation which is not sufficiently sensitive to context. 8.Oversight Board analysis The Board looked at the question of whether this content should be restored through three lenses: Meta's content policies, the company's values, and its human rights responsibilities. This case was selected by the Board as the over-moderation of speech by users from persecuted minority groups is a serious and widespread threat to their freedom of expression. Online spaces for expression are particularly important to groups that face persecution and their rights require heightened attention for protection from social media companies. This case also demonstrates the tension for Meta in seeking to protect minorities from hate speech, while also seeking to create a space where minorities can fully express themselves, including by reclaiming hateful slurs. 8.1 Compliance with Meta’s content policies I.Content rules The Board finds that, while slur terms are used, the content is not hate speech because it falls into an exception in the Hate Speech policy for slur words that are “used self-referentially or in an empowering way,” as well as the exception for quoting hate speech to “condemn it or raise awareness.” In the "Wampum Belt" and "Two buttons meme" decisions the Board noted that it is not necessary for a user to explicitly state their intention in a post in order for it to meet the requirements of an exception to the Hate Speech policy. It is enough for a user to be clear in the context of the post that they are using hate speech terminology in a way for which the policy allows. However, the content in this case included the user’s statements that they did not “condone or encourage” the offensive use of the slur terms in question but that the post was instead “an attempt to resist and challenge the dominant narrative” and “to reclaim the power of such hurtful terms.” While clear statements of intent will not always be necessary or sufficient to legitimize the use or quotation of hate speech, they should alert a moderator to the possibility that an exception may apply. In this case, the Board finds that the statement of intent, coupled with the context, make clear that the content unambiguously falls within the exception. Despite this, Meta initially removed the content, with three separate moderators determining that the content violated the Hate Speech policy. While there are a range of possible reasons as to how multiple moderators failed to properly classify the content, Meta was unable to provide specific explanations for the error since the company does not require moderators to record the reasoning for their decisions. As noted in the "Wampum Belt" decision, the types of mistakes and the people or communities who bear the burden of them reflect design choices for enforcement systems on the platform that risk impairing the free speech rights of members of persecuted groups. When Meta observes a pattern of persistent over-enforcement of content in relation to a persecuted or marginalized group, such as in this case, it would be appropriate to investigate the reasoning behind the enforcement decisions and consider what modifications to moderation rules, or increased training or supervision with respect to existing rules, are necessary to avoid overzealous enforcement that burdens members of groups whose expressive rights are at particular risk. II.Enforcement action https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-2PJ00L4T 6/11