9/7/24, 14:07 Violence against women | Consejo asesor de contenido behavioral statement” attributes a behavior to all or a majority of people defined by a protected characteristic, while a “qualified behavioral statement” does not. Meta further explained that it determined the statement was qualified by looking at several factors. These included: noting the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women; that the user encourages sharing the post and provides information on helplines; and that the user shares a description of an experience of violence and describes it as a social problem. Meta concluded that “the user’s clear intent to raise awareness of violence against women provides further support that the content does not violate the Hate Speech policy.” Meta also stated that “although [the content] does not squarely fall into Meta’s allowance for raising awareness of or condemning someone else’s hate speech, [its] policy is designed to allow room for raising awareness of gender-based violence.” While Meta listed the user’s intent as a contextual factor in finding the content non-violating, in response to question asked by the Board, the company acknowledged that its policies generally do not grant reviewers discretion to consider intent. According to Meta, to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of its rules, it does not require at-scale reviewers “to infer intent or guess at what someone ‘is really saying’” because “divining intent for hate speech invites subjectivity, bias, and inequitable enforcement.” As Meta referenced criteria that are not in Meta’s internal guidelines to reviewers, the Board asked Meta for any existing guidance that would help reviewers reach the correct outcome in this case. Meta then referenced additional confidential internal guidance that focused on elements not relevant to this case. The company also stated that while this case did “not fit neatly into its policies,” it would expect its reviewers to understand that this content is nonviolating. With regard to the second post, Meta found that “[u]nlike the content in [the first] case, this content contained an expression of hatred directed toward men, which violates [Meta’s] Hate Speech policy.” The company explained that its Hate Speech policy prohibits content targeting men with expressions of contempt, which it defines as “self-admission to intolerance on the basis of protected characteristics,” including expressions of hate. For Meta, the reference to being a man-hater is an expression of hate. Meta acknowledged that the user also said they do not hate all men but stated this did not negate the expression of hate. Meta further noted that the content may violate other elements of its Hate Speech policy but stressed that its removal decision was made based solely on this expression of hate. Meta stated there was an implicit generalization about men, as the user included a phrase about knowing what men are like in general. Meta also described the part of the post that described poisonous snakes as an “implicit comparison between men and snakes” and arguably violating. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/ig-h3138h6s/?lang=es 10/21