4/10/22, 10:31 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. The Board’s most relevant decisions to this case include: The “Wampum Belt decision” (2021-012-FB-UA): In this decision the Board highlighted the importance of protecting the expression of marginalized groups, noting that Meta must ensure that it does not remove content that falls under a Hate Speech policy exception. The “South Africa slurs decision” (2021-011-FB-UA): In this decision the Board found that Meta must be more transparent on the procedures and criteria it uses for developing its slur lists. The Board also recommended that Meta prioritize improving procedural fairness in its enforcement of the Hate Speech policy so that users can better understand why content is removed. The “Myanmar bot decision” (2021-007-FB-UA): In this decision the Board emphasised the importance of context in assessing whether content falls into the exceptions to the Hate Speech policy. The Board also refers to recommendations made in: The “Ocalan's isolation decision” (2021-006-IG-UA), the "Two buttons meme decision” (2021-005-FB-UA), and the “Breast cancer symptoms and nudity decision” (2020-004-IG-UA). II. Meta’s content policies: This case involves Instagram's Community Guidelines and Facebook's Community Standards. Meta's Transparency Center states that "Facebook and Instagram share Content Policies. This means that if content is considered violating on Facebook, it is also considered violating on Instagram." Instagram's Community Guidelines state: We want to foster a positive, diverse community. We remove content that contains credible threats or hate speech… It's never OK to encourage violence or attack anyone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, disabilities, or diseases. When hate speech is being shared to challenge it or to raise awareness, we may allow it. In those instances, we ask that you express your intent clearly. Facebook's Community Standards define hate speech as "a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disease or disability." Meta divides attacks into three tiers. The slurs section of the hate speech policy prohibits “[c]ontent that describes or negatively targets people with slurs, where slurs are defined as words that are inherently offensive and used as insulting labels for the above characteristics.” The rest of tier three prohibits content targeting people with segregation or exclusion. As part of the policy rationale Meta explains that: We recognize that people sometimes share content that includes someone else's hate speech to condemn it or raise awareness. In other cases, speech that might otherwise violate our standards can be used self-referentially or in an empowering way. Our policies are designed to allow room for these types of speech, but we require people to clearly indicate their intent. If the intention is unclear, we may remove content. III. Meta’s values: Meta's values are outlined in the introduction to the Facebook Community Standards where the value of "Voice" is described as "paramount": The goal of our Community Standards has always been to create a place for expression and give people a voice. […] We want people to be able to talk openly about the issues that matter to them, even if some may disagree or find them objectionable. Meta limits "Voice" in service of four values, two of which are relevant here: "Safety": We are committed to making Facebook a safe place. Expression that threatens people has the potential to intimidate, exclude or silence others and isn't allowed on Facebook. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-2PJ00L4T 4/11