3/10/22, 12:48 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. appreciates Facebook’s apprehension of fully disclosing its internal content moderation rules due to concerns over some users taking advantage of this to spread harmful content. However, Facebook’s policy of defaulting towards removing content showing “support” for designated individuals, while keeping key exceptions hidden from the public, allowed this mistake to go unnoticed by the company for approximately three years without any accountability. The June 2021 update to the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Community Standard provides more information on what Facebook considers to be “support” but does not explain to users what exceptions could be applied to these rules. Even without the discovery of the misplaced guidance, the content should not have been removed for “support.” This kind of call to action should not be construed as supporting the dangerous ends of the PKK. The user only encouraged people to discuss Öcalan’s solitary confinement, including through hunger strikes, protests, legal action, op-eds, reading groups, and memes. Accordingly, the removal of content in this case did not serve the policy’s stated aim of preventing and disrupting real-world harm. 8.2 Compliance with Facebook’s values The Board found that Facebook’s decision to remove this content did not comply with Facebook’s values of “Voice” and “Safety.” The user carefully crafted their post calling for a discussion about ending Öcalan’s isolation in prison on Imrali Island. They encouraged readers to discuss the inhumanity of solitary confinement and why it would be necessary to keep Öcalan confined in such a manner. The user advocated peaceful actions to provoke this discussion, and did not advocate for or incite violence in their post. They also did not express support for Öcalan’s ideology or the PKK. The Board found that expression which challenges human rights violations is central to the value of “Voice.” This is especially important with reference to the rights of detained people, who may be unable to effectively advocate in support of their own rights, particularly in countries with alleged mistreatment of prisoners and where human rights advocacy may be suppressed. The value of “Safety” was notionally engaged because the content concerned a designated dangerous individual. However, removing the content did not address any clear “Safety” concern. The content did not include language that incited or advocated for the use of https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-I9DP23IB/ 12/21