Slurs in Positive Context

Summary decisions examine cases in which Meta has reversed its original decision on a piece of content after the Board brought it to the company’s attention and include information about Meta’s acknowledged errors. They are approved by a Board Member panel, rather than the full Board, do not involve public comments and do not have precedential value for the Board. Summary decisions directly bring about changes to Meta’s decisions, providing transparency on these corrections, while identifying where Meta could improve its enforcement.

Summary

Five users appealed Meta's decisions to remove their Facebook and Instagram posts containing slurs used in a self-referential or positive context. After the Board brought the appeals to Meta’s attention, the company reversed its original decisions and restored all five posts.

About the Cases

Five users from different countries (Greece, Germany, Ecuador, the United States and India) posted content including slurs used in a self-referential or positive context, between April and November 2025, that Meta initially removed for violating the Hateful Conduct policy.

In the first case, from Greece, an Instagram user shared a snippet of a YouTube video promoting a podcast episode hosted by a drag queen. The video clip features the host and their guest, who is also a drag queen and transgender, discussing their experiences. In the interview, the guest describes themselves, saying (as translated from Greek), "The behavior of a big faggot [hereafter “f*****”], the walk of a big f*****, dressing like a big f***** ..." The term " Πούστης," deployed by the guest drag queen in the video, is a derogatory term for gay men in Greek that can be translated into English as the f-slur stated above. In their appeal to the Board, the user explained that they were, “Using slurs that people use against us as a form of empowerment.”

In the second case, from Germany, an Instagram user posted a self-recorded video of themselves speaking in Turkish while walking on the street in Berlin. In the video, the user states (as translated from Turkish): "I think I'm causing shock to the Turks in Berlin as a Turkish-speaking f*****, that's why I want to speak a lot of Turkish while shooting the video." The caption reads (translated from Turkish): "Berlin, you were fabulous, my darling. We'll see each other again soon. My visibility surely shocked people from Turkey." The term " ibne," mentioned by the user when referring to themselves, can be translated as the f-slur into English. In their appeal to the Board, the user said: "This video is made by a person that is part of the marginalized group, it contains a reclaimed word, so it is not attacking anyone."

In the third case, from Ecuador, a Facebook user commented in Spanish on a photo featuring the band of an Ecuadorian singer. The comment was posted in response to another user and reads: "[Name] this is it my cholo because for the next tour you must be in it and expressing my affections to you too my cholo.” The word "cholo" has been used as a derogatory term to refer to indigenous and mestizo individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in Ecuador and other Latin American countries. While historically used to marginalize these individuals, the term has been reclaimed by those embracing their identity as a source of pride and sense of belonging. In their appeal to the Board, the user explained that the term “is a simple greeting of affection for a friend.”

In the fourth case, from the United States, a user posted a video on Instagram featuring a rap battle between a white rapper and a Black rapper. The initial segment of the video includes a snippet from a previous rap battle in which the Black rapper repeatedly employs the N-word in the lyrics. The white rapper responds to the previous performance by repeating the sequence substituting the N-word with "cracker," a derogatory term directed at white individuals. In their appeal to the Board, the user explained that this "was a friendly, artistic exchange and not hate speech" and that "rap battles use wordplay and exaggerated language as part of the art form." The user emphasized that neither of the performances were intended to attack or encourage harm, and that it is a creative act understood by their audience.

Finally, in the fifth case, from India, the user posted a video on Facebook which recounted in Hindi, the story of Udaiya Chamar, a 19th century revolutionary. The video repeatedly uses the word "chamar," and the user caption accompanying the video, as translated from Hindi, reads: "Udaiya Chamar was the first fear of the British rule." The word "chamar" has historically been used as a derogatory casteist term against India’s marginalized Dalit communities. However, over the past decade, Dalit communities have reclaimed the term and it is now widely used in self-referential and empowering ways. In their appeal to the Board, the user highlighted the Chamar's contributions to resistance against British colonial rule, noting that, "The history of the heroes of the Dalit community often did not get a place in mainstream history."

Under the Hateful Conduct policy, Meta removes content that "describes or negatively targets people with slurs." Slurs are defined as "words that inherently create an atmosphere of exclusion and intimidation against people on the basis of a protected characteristic, often because these words are tied to historical discrimination, oppression and violence." In the policy rationale, Meta states that slurs are allowed when used self-referentially or in an empowering way. The company notes that slurs only qualify for such exceptions when the user’s intent is clear.

After the Board selected the cases, Meta concluded that it had incorrectly removed all five posts. In the first and second cases, Meta found that the speakers in both videos use terms equivalent to “f*****” self-referentially. In the third case, Meta concluded that, because the term “cholo” is often used endearingly in Ecuador, it is therefore best interpreted as having been deployed in a positive context, which is allowed under the Hateful Conduct policy. In relation to the fourth case, Meta concluded that individuals use slurs self-referentially, alongside first-person language when employing them (e.g., “one of my crackers”). For the fifth case, Meta highlighted that the word "chamar" is sometimes used to raise awareness of the historical struggles faced by the Dalit community. The company concluded that this interpretation is supported by the caption of the video in this case, which explicitly frames the term as highlighting historical realities and fostering understanding. Consequently, Meta restored all five posts.

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).

When Meta acknowledges it made an error and reverses its decision in a case under consideration for Board review, the Board may select that case for a summary decision (Bylaws Article 2, Section 2.1.3). The Board reviews the original decision to increase understanding of the content moderation process, reduce errors and increase fairness for Facebook, Instagram and Threads users.

Significance of Cases

This bundle provides several examples of the overenforcement of Meta’s Hateful Conduct Community Standard, demonstrating ongoing issues with the company's ability to enforce exceptions to this policy for the use of slurs in self-referential and/or positive contexts.

Slur reclamation is a sociolinguistic and cultural practice whereby members of a stigmatized group reappropriate derogatory terms historically wielded against them, promoting self-acceptance and fostering group solidarity. By reclaiming these terms, communities seek to strip them of their power to harm, reshaping them into symbols of strength and pride while reclaiming the right to define themselves on their own terms.

The Board has repeatedly emphasized the importance of protecting the expression of marginalized groups, noting that Meta must continue to improve enforcement involving its policy exceptions. The Board highlighted in the Reclaiming Arabic Words, Heritage of Pride, Poem About Political Protest in Argentina, Wampum Belt and Reclaimed Term in Drag Performance decisions the impact of similar errors.

The Board has issued recommendations aimed at reducing errors in Meta's enforcement of its Hateful Conduct Community Standard, including policy exceptions. In the Criminal Allegations Based on Nationality decision, the Board stated that Meta should "share [with the public] the results of the internal audits it conducts to assess the accuracy of human review and performance of automated systems in the enforcement of its Hate Speech [now Hateful Conduct] policy […] in a way that allows these assessments to be compared across languages and/or regions," (recommendation no. 2). Recently, Meta explained it has "launched the initial version of a new metric system designed to better assess enforcement precision and reviewer effectiveness" (Meta's H2 2025 Report on the Oversight Board [Appendix]). According to Meta, the company will "share performance data as the new system matures." The implementation is still in progress, with data yet to be shared by Meta.

In another decision, the Board recommended that Meta "let users indicate in their appeal that their content falls into one of the exceptions to the Hate Speech policy" ( "Two Buttons" Meme, recommendation no. 4). In the same decision, the Board further recommended that Meta to "ensure appeals based on policy exceptions are prioritized for human review" ( "Two Buttons" Meme, recommendation no. 5). Meta has partially implemented the first recommendation by introducing a feature that allows users to provide additional context when submitting appeals across policies on both Facebook and Instagram. The Board considered this recommendation partially implemented because the Board was not informed of the markets and languages this new feature was rolled out into. For the latter recommendation, Meta has reported progress toward implementation. In its H1 2025 Report on the Oversight Board [Appendix], Meta stated that it is "continuing to assess the feasibility of incorporating policy exceptions into the overall prioritization framework following the launch of changes to the appeals experience that allows users to indicate a policy exception."

The Board believes that fully implementing recommendation no. 2 from the Criminal Allegations Based on Nationality decision, issued in 2024, would further strengthen the company’s ability to reduce overenforcement against speech from vulnerable groups, especially in languages other than English. The Board notes that only one out of the five cases in this bundle involves content in English. Moreover, full implementation of recommendations regarding appeals review would provide users with a more effective remedy to reverse erroneous takedowns of content that falls within policy exceptions. Finally, a more expeditious implementation of the Board’s recommendations would further contribute to addressing overenforcement. The Board notes that, as of May 2026, 73 recommendations issued by the Board remain “in progress,” with some recommendations pending implementation since 2023.

Decision

The Board overturns Meta’s original decisions to remove the five pieces of content. The Board acknowledges Meta’s correction of its initial errors once the Board brought the cases to Meta’s attention.

Return to Case Decisions and Policy Advisory Opinions