3/10/22, 12:48 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. what is allowed on the platform. While the guidance remained technically accessible to content moderators in a training annex, the company acknowledges that it was difficult to find during standard review procedures and that the reviewer in this case did not have access to it. This guidance is a strictly internal document designed to assist Facebook’s moderators and was not reflected in Facebook’s public-facing Community Standards or Instagram’s Community Guidelines. Facebook only learned that this policy was not being applied because of the user who decided to appeal Facebook’s decision to remove their content to the Board. If not for this user’s actions, it is possible this error would never have come to light. As of June 29, Facebook has yet to reinstate the misplaced internal policy into its guidance for content moderators. The company explained to the Board that it “will work to ensure that the guidance it provides to its content reviewers on this subject is clear and more readily accessible to help avoid future enforcement errors.” Facebook restored the content to Instagram on April 23 and notified the Board that it “is currently working on an update to its policies to make clear that users can debate or discuss the conditions of confinement of designated terrorist individuals or other violations of their human rights, while still prohibiting content that praises or supports those individuals’ violent actions.” The company welcomed “the Oversight Board’s insight and guidance into how to strike an appropriate balance between fostering expression on subjects of human rights concern while simultaneously ensuring that its platform is not used to spread content praising or supporting terrorists or violent actors.” 3. Authority and scope The Board has the power to review Facebook’s decision following an appeal from the user whose post was removed (Charter Article 2, Section 1; Bylaws Article 2, Section 2.1). The Board may uphold or reverse that decision (Charter Article 3, Section 5). In line with case decision 2020-004-IG-UA, Facebook reversing a decision a user appealed against does not exclude the case from review. The Board’s decisions are binding and may include policy advisory statements with recommendations. These recommendations are non-binding, but Facebook must respond to them (Charter Article 3, Section 4). https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-I9DP23IB/ 7/21