3/10/22, 12:48 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. publicly available information on the quantity of content restored after being incorrectly removed for violating its policy on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations. The Board notes that this does not provide the same kind of detail that would be reflected in internal audits and quality control to assess the accuracy of enforcement. While Facebook acknowledged it internally breaks down error rates for enforcement decisions by moderators and by automation, it refused to provide this information to the Board on the basis that “the information is not reasonably required for decision-making in accordance with the intent of the Charter.” Furthermore, the Board asked Facebook whether content is appealable to the Board if it has been removed for violating the Community Standards following a government flagging the content. Facebook confirmed such cases are appealable to the Board. This is distinct from those removed on the basis of a government requesting removal to comply with local law, which are excluded from review by Article 2, Section 1.2 of the Bylaws. While the Board does not have reason to believe that this content was the subject of a government referral, it is concerned that neither users whose content is removed on the basis of the Community Standards, nor the Board, are informed where there was government involvement in content removal. This may be particularly relevant for enforcement decisions that are later identified as errors, as well as where users suspect government involvement but there was none. Facebook’s transparency reporting is also limited in this regard. While it includes statistics on government legal requests for the removal of content based on local law, it does not include data on content that is removed for violating the Community Standards after a government flagging the content. This collection of concerns indicates that Facebook is failing to respect the right to remedy, in contravention of its Corporate Human Rights Policy (Section 3). 9. Oversight Board decision The Oversight Board overturns Facebook's original decision to take down the content, requiring the post to be restored. The Board notes that Facebook has accepted that its original decision was incorrect and has already restored the content. 10. Policy advisory statement As noted above, Facebook changed its Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-I9DP23IB/ 17/21