12/20/23, 4:12 PM Oversight Board | Independent judgement. Transparency. Legitimacy. addition of a warning screen and the reason, Instagram users receive no notification. Meta explained that its internal guidance for moderators, the Known Questions, define sadistic remarks as those that "are enjoying or deriving pleasure from the suffering/humiliation of a human or animal". The Known Questions provide examples of remarks that qualify as sadistic, divided into those that show an "enjoyment of suffering" and "humorous responses". Meta also confirmed that sadistic remarks can be expressed through hashtags as well as emojis. In its analysis of the hashtags used in this case, Meta explained that the reference to the sound of gunfire was a "humorous response" to violence that made light of the 5 June terror attack. Meta explained the same hashtag is also used to market weapons. Meta also stated that the gunfire hashtag, as well as the hashtag referring to individuals who collect firearms and firearm paraphernalia, "could be read as glorifying violence and minimising the suffering of the victims by invoking humour and speaking positively about the weapons and gear used to perpetrate their death". Meta also explained that the hashtag referring to military simulations compared the attack to a simulation, "minimising the actual tragedy and real-world harm experienced by the victims and their community". Meta also stated that the hashtags referring to "airsoft" compared the attack to a game in a way that glorifies violence as something done for pleasure. Meta explained that the user's caption asserting that they do not support violence and that the attack was a sad day "do not clearly indicate that they are sharing the video to raise awareness of the attack". The company also clarified that, even if the user showed intent to raise awareness, the use of "sadistic hashtags" would still result in removal. To support this position, Meta explained that some users attempt to evade moderation by including deceptive or contradictory language in their posts. Meta distinguished this from the Board's decision in the "Sudan graphic video" case ( 2022-002-FB-FBR) where the user made clear their intent to raise awareness while sharing disturbing content. In response to the Board's questions, Meta informed the Board that the user included the same hashtags in most of their recent posts. Meta could not determine why this user was repeatedly using the same hashtags. Meta also stated that the user's post violated the Bullying and Harassment policy which prohibits content that mocks the death of private individuals. In this case, the hashtag referencing the sound of gunfire was deemed to be a humorous response to the violence shown in the video. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-OZNR5J1Z/ 11/26