9/7/24, 14:07 Violence against women | Consejo asesor de contenido Again, when reading the post in its entirety, the content does not express contempt against all men, but expresses strong condemnation of violence against women and men who commit it. While the user states she is a "man-hater," she both explains that this does not mean she hates all men and describe man hating as being defined by discussing fear and condemning violence against women. The user's analogy to the fear of venomous snakes, while disturbing on the surface, actually strengthens the Board’s conclusion that the post as a whole is not a condemnation of all men. Not all snakes are venomous; most are harmless. But the user is pointing out that the fear of venomous snakes brushes off onto all snakes, causing many or most human to be frightened of snakes as a class. Some Members disagreed and thought the second post was an expression of contempt, and thus a violation of Meta’s rules. A subset of these Members believed the post should remain off the platform and thus dissent from any decision to restore the post whose language, they claim, could lead to negative unintended consequences for both men and women. The Board finds the second post to be more complex to assess than the first post. While the first post should have been more easily recognized as qualified, for the second post nuanced analysis of the entire post and its language was key to understand it was not an expression of contempt. The Board agrees that the post is ultimately a condemnation of violence against women and discusses the roots of gender-based hate, thus a majority decides to restore it to the platform. Finally, the Board agrees that the content of these posts does not create an environment of intimidation or promote offline violence, and consequently does not violate the Hate Speech policy rationale. The Board finds this post seeks to diminish offline violence against women and falls directly within Meta’s paramount value of “Voice.” For this reason, the Board also finds that removing the content was not consistent with Meta's values. II. Enforcement action The Board notes that Meta’s review and appeal process for the first post used two at-scale reviewers seven times at different levels of review. In other words, the same two people were asked to review decisions that they themselves had taken earlier, rather than refer the secondary decisions to different reviewers. The Board is concerned that the effectiveness of the appeal and HIPO reviews here may have been undermined by this approach. In the “Wampum belt” case, the Board expressed concerns about Meta’s review and appeal system, and requested an evaluation of accuracy rates when content moderators are informed that they are engaged in secondary review and know that the initial determination was contested. Meta responded that it is still exploring the most efficient way to provide reviewers with additional information to maximize the accuracy of their https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/ig-h3138h6s/?lang=es 13/21