4/10/22, 10:31 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. 1.Decision summary The Oversight Board overturns Meta’s original decision to remove an Instagram post by an account that explores “queer narratives in Arabic history and popular culture.” The content falls into an exception in Meta’s Hate Speech policy as it reports, condemns, and discusses the negative use of homophobic slurs by others and uses them in an expressly positive context. 2. Case description and background In November 2021, a public Instagram account which identifies itself as a space for discussing queer narratives in Arabic culture posted a series of pictures in a carousel (a single Instagram post that can contain up to 10 images with a single caption). The caption, which the user wrote in both Arabic and English, explains that each picture shows a different word that can be used in a derogatory way towards men with "effeminate mannerisms" in the Arabic speaking world, including the terms "zamel," "foufou," and "tante"/"tanta." In the caption the user stated that they did not "condone or encourage the use of these words," but explained that they had previously been abused with one of these slurs and that the post was intended "to reclaim [the] power of such hurtful terms." The Board’s external experts confirmed that the terms quoted in the content are often used as slurs. The content was viewed approximately 9,000 times, receiving around 30 comments and approximately 2,000 reactions. Within three hours of the content being posted, a user reported it for "adult nudity or sexual activity" and another user reported it as "sexual solicitation." Each report was dealt with separately by different human moderators. No action was taken by the moderator who reviewed the first report, but the moderator who reviewed the second report removed the content for violating Meta’s Hate Speech policy. The user appealed this removal and a third moderator restored the content to the platform. After the content was restored, another user reported it as “hate speech” and another moderator carried out a fourth review, again removing the content. The user appealed a second time and, after a fifth review, another moderator upheld the decision to remove the content. After Meta notified the user of that decision, the user submitted an appeal to the Oversight Board. Meta later confirmed that all of the moderators who reviewed the content were fluent Arabic speakers. Meta explained that the initial decisions to take down the content were based on reviews of the pictures containing the terms “z***l” and “t***e/t***a”. In response to a question from the Board Meta also noted that the company considers another term used in the content, “moukhanath” to be a slur. According to Meta, after the user appealed to the Board but before the Board selected the case, the content was independently escalated for an additional internal review, which determined that it did not violate the Hate Speech Policy. The content was subsequently restored to the platform. 3. Oversight Board authority and scope The Board has authority to review Meta’s decision following an appeal from the user whose content was removed (Charter Article 2, Section 1; Bylaws Article 3, Section 1). The Board may uphold or overturn Meta’s decision (Charter Article 3, Section 5), and this decision is binding on the company (Charter Article 4). Meta must also assess the feasibility of applying its decision in respect of identical content with parallel context (Charter Article 4). The Board’s decisions may include policy advisory statements with non-binding recommendations that Meta must respond to (Charter Article 3, Section 4; Article 4). When the Board selects cases like this one, where Meta has agreed that it made an error, the Board reviews the original decision to help increase understanding of why errors occur, and to make observations or recommendations that may contribute to reducing errors and to enhancing due process. 4.Sources of authority The Oversight Board considered the following as sources of authority: I.Oversight Board decisions: https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-2PJ00L4T 3/11