3/10/22, 12:48 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. necessity and proportionality (Article 19, para. 3, ICCPR). The Human Rights Committee has stated that restrictions on expression should not “put in jeopardy the right itself,” and has emphasized that “the relation between right and restriction and between norm and exception must not be reversed” (General Comment No. 34, para. 21). The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has emphasized that social media companies should seek to align their content moderation policies on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations with these principles (A/74/486, para. 58(b)). a.Legality (clarity and accessibility of the rules) Restrictions on expression should be formulated with sufficient precision so that individuals understand what is prohibited and act accordingly (General Comment 34, para. 25). Such rules should also be made accessible to the public. Precise rules are important for those enforcing them: to constrain discretion and prevent arbitrary decision-making, and also to safeguard against bias. The Board recommended in case 2020-005-FB-UA that the Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations be amended to define “representation,” “praise,” and “support,” and reiterated these concerns in case 2021-003-FB-UA. The Board notes that Facebook has now publicly defined those terms. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has described social media platforms prohibitions on both “praise” and “support” as “excessively vague” (A/HRC/38/35, para. 26; see also: General Comment No. 34, para. 46). In a public comment submitted to the Board (PC-10055), the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism noted that although Facebook has made some progress to clarify its rules in this area, “the Guidelines and Standard are [still] insufficiently consistent with international law and may function in practice to undermine certain fundamental rights, including but not limited to freedom of expression, association, participation in public affairs and non-discrimination.” Several public comments made similar observations. The Board noted Facebook provides extensive internal and confidential guidance to reviewers to interpret the company’s public-facing content policies, to ensure consistent and non-arbitrary moderation. However, it is unacceptable that key rules on what is excluded from Facebook’s definition of support are not reflected in the public-facing Community Standards. b. Legitimate aim https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-I9DP23IB/ 14/21