3/10/22, 12:48 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. individual or organization until it was updated on June 23, 2021. In January 2021, the Board recommended that Facebook publicly define praise, support, and representation, as well as provide more illustrative examples of how the policy is applied ( case 2020-005-FB-UA). In February, Facebook committed to “add language to our Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Community Standard within a few weeks explaining that we may remove content if the intent is not made clear [as well as to] add definitions of “praise,” “support” and “representation” within a few months.” On June 23, 2021, Facebook updated this standard to include definitions. The Board also recommended that Facebook clarify the relationship between Instagram’s Community Guidelines and the Facebook Community Standards ( case 2020-004-IG-UA). As of June 29, Facebook has yet to inform the Board of its actions to implement this commitment. In the present case, following a request from the Board, Facebook shared internal guidance for content moderators about the meaning of “support” of designated individuals and organizations. That defines a “call to action in support” as a call to direct an audience to do something to further a designated dangerous organization or its cause. This language was not reflected in the public-facing Community Standards at the time this content was posted and is not included in the update published on June 23, 2021. Further to this, the misplaced and non-public guidance created in 2017 in response to Öcalan’s solitary confinement makes clear that discussions of the conditions of a designated dangerous individual’s confinement are permitted, and do not constitute support. In the absence of any other context, Facebook views statements calling for the freedom of a terrorist as support and such content is removed. Again, this language is not reflected in the public-facing Community Standards. The Board is concerned that specific guidance for moderators on an important policy exception was lost for three years. This guidance makes clear that the content in this case was not violating. Had the Board not selected this case for review, the guidance would have remained unknown to content moderators, and a significant amount of expression in the public interest would have been removed. This case demonstrates why public rules are important for users: they not only inform them of what is expected, but also empower them to point out Facebook’s mistakes. The Board https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-I9DP23IB/ 11/21