4/10/22, 10:45 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. well as opinion. In response to the Board’s questions, Meta clarified that the reporting allowance allows anyone, and not only journalists, to speak positively about a designated organization in the context of reporting. However, this clarity is not provided to reviewers in internal guidance. Meta admits this guidance does not provide reviewers with a definition of how to interpret “reporting on.” II. Legitimate aim The Oversight Board has previously recognized that the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy pursues the aim of protecting the rights of others, including the right to life, security of person, and equality and non-discrimination (Article 19(3) ICCPR, Oversight Board decision “Punjabi Concern over the RSS in India”). The Board further recognises that propaganda from designated entities, including through proxies presenting themselves as independent media, may pose risks of harm to the rights of others. Seeking to mitigate those harms through this policy is a legitimate aim. III. Necessity and proportionality Any restrictions on freedom of expression "must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function; they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected" (General comment 34, para. 34). Meta has acknowledged that the removal of content in this case was not necessary, and therefore additional sanctions should not have been imposed on the user. The Board understands that when moderating content at scale, mistakes will be made. However, the Board does receive complaints on errors in enforcing the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy that affect reporting, particularly in languages other than English, which raises serious concerns (see “Shared Al Jazeera post” decision, “Ocalan’s isolation ” decision). The UN Human Rights Committee has emphasized that “the media plays a crucial role in informing the public about acts of terrorism and its capacity to operate should not be unduly restricted. In this regard, journalists should not be penalized for carrying out their legitimate activities” (General Comment 34, para 46). Meta therefore has a responsibility to prevent and mitigate its platforms’ negative human rights impact on news reporting. The Board is concerned that the type of enforcement error in this case may be indicative of broader failures in this regard. Those engaged in regular commentary on the activities of Tier 1 dangerous individuals and organizations face heightened risks of enforcement errors leading to their accounts facing severe sanctions. This may undermine their livelihoods and deny the public access to information at key moments. The Board is concerned the policy of defaulting to remove content when the intent to report on dangerous entities is not clearly indicated by the user may be leading to over-removal of non-violating content, even where contextual cues make clear the post is, in fact, reporting. Moreover, the system for mistake prevention and correction did not benefit this user as it should have. This indicates problems with how the ranker within the HIPO system prioritized the content decision for additional review, which meant it never reached the front of the queue. It also raises questions about the resources allocated to human review of the HIPO queue potentially being insufficient for Urdu language content. In this case, the enforcement error and failure to correct it denied a number of Facebook users access to information on issues of global importance and hampered a news outlet in carrying out its journalistic function to inform the public. Journalists may report on events in an impartial manner that avoids the kind of overt condemnation that reviewers may be looking to see. To avoid content removals and account sanctions, journalists may engage in self-censorship, and may even be incentivized to depart from their ethical professional responsibilities. Further, there have been reports of anti-Taliban Facebook users avoiding mentioning the Taliban in posts because they are concerned about being subjected to erroneous sanctions. The Board also notes that Meta has issued what it calls “spirit of the policy” exceptions related to the Taliban. This indicates recognition from Meta that at times, its approach under the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy is producing results that are inconsistent with the policy’s objectives, and therefore do not meet the requirement of necessity. Internal company materials obtained by journalists reveal that in September 2021, the company created an exception “to allow content shared by the [Afghanistan] Ministry of Interior” on matters such as new traffic regulations, and to allow two specific posts from the Ministry of Health in relation to COVID-19. Other exceptions have reportedly been more tailored and shorter-lived. For 12 days in August 2021, “government figures” could reportedly acknowledge the Taliban as the “official gov of Afghanistan [ sic]” without risking account sanctions. From late August 2021 to September 3, users could “post the Taliban’s public statements without having to ‘neutrally discuss, report on, or condemn’ these statements.” Meta spokespersons acknowledged that some ad hoc exceptions were issued. In a Policy Forum on Crisis Policy Protocol, on January 25, 2022, Meta stated that it will deploy “policy levers” in crisis situations and provided the example of allowing “praise of a specific designated org (e.g. a guerrilla group signing a peace treaty).” These exceptions to the general prohibition on praise could cause more uncertainty for reviewers, as well as for users who may not be aware if or when an exception applies. They show that there are situations when Meta has reportedly recognized a more nuanced approach to content is warranted dealing with a designated entity that overthrows a legitimate government and assumes territorial control. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-U2HHA647 10/12