4/10/22, 10:45 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. the user going live on Facebook, using ad products, and creating or joining Messenger rooms. Additionally, the news outlet page itself also received one standard strike and one severe strike. On January 21, the administrator of the news outlet page (“the user”) appealed the removal of the content to Meta. The content was reviewed by another Urdu-speaking reviewer who also found that the content violated the Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations. Though the content was then placed in a queue for identifying and reversing “false positive” mistakes (content wrongly actioned for violating the Community Standards), known as High Impact False Positive Override (HIPO), it received no additional review. According to Meta, this was because of the number of Urdu speaking HIPO reviewers in mid-2022 and because the content in this case, after it was removed, was not given a priority score by Meta’s automated systems as high as other content in the HIPO queue at that time. As a result of the Board’s selection of the user’s appeal for review, Meta determined that its original removal decision was in error because its Community Standards allow “reporting on” designated organizations and individuals. On February 25, 2022, Meta subsequently restored the content. Meta also removed the longer feature-limit it had imposed and reversed the strikes against the administrator’s account and the page. 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). 4. Sources of authority The Oversight Board considered the following authorities and standards: I. Oversight Board decisions: The most relevant prior Oversight Board decisions include: “Shared Al Jazeera post ” (Case decision 2021-009-FB-UA): The Board recommended that Meta provide public criteria and examples in its Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Community Standard for the following allowances to the policy: “neutral discussion”; “reporting”; and “condemnation.” “Öcalan’s isolation” (Case decision 2021-006-IG-UA): The Board recommended that Meta clarify in its public-facing Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Community Standards how users can make their intent clear when posting. It reiterated recommendations that Meta disclose either the full list of designated individuals and organizations or an illustrative list. The Board also called for enhanced transparency reporting on error rates for enforcing its prohibition on praise and support of designated individuals and organizations, broken down by region and language. “Punjabi Concern over the RSS in India” (Case decision 2021-003-FB-UA): The Board recommended that Meta should aim to make its Community Standards accessible in all languages widely spoken by its users. The Board also expressed concerns that Meta’s rules on restrictions are spread across many locations and not all found in the Community Standards, as one would expect. “Nazi quote” (Case decision 2020-005-FB-UA): The Board recommended that Meta provide examples of “praise,” “support” and “representation” in the Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations. II. Meta’s content policies: The Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations states that Facebook does "not allow organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence to have a presence on Facebook." Meta divides its designations of “dangerous” entities into three tiers, explaining these "indicate the level of content enforcement, with Tier 1 resulting in the most extensive enforcement because Meta states that these entities have the most direct ties to offline harm." Tier 1 designations are focused on "entities that engage in serious offline harms," including “terrorist, hate and criminal organizations.” Meta removes “praise,” “substantive support,” and “representation” of Tier 1 entities as well as their leaders, founders, or prominent members. Meta designates the Taliban as a Tier 1 entity. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-U2HHA647 4/12