Oversight Board publishes first summary decisions | Oversight Board

Today, following changes to our Bylaws in February, we are issuing three summary decisions about praise for Bissau-Guinean anti-colonial leader Amílcar Cabral, dehumanizing speech against a woman, and a metaphorical statement against the then-president of Peru, Pedro Castillo. Summary decisions examine cases where Meta reversed its original decision on a piece of content after we brought the case to the company’s attention.

After our Case Selection Committee, which is comprised of Board Members, has identified a list of cases to consider for selection, Meta sometimes determines that its original decision on a post was incorrect, and reverses it. So far, Meta has reversed its original decision in this way for around 100 cases we brought to its attention. In the vast majority of these cases, this meant that Meta restored the content in question.

The fact that Meta reverses its original decision does not prevent the Board from reviewing these kinds of cases. These have led to some of our most important decisions, including “ breast cancer symptoms and nudity” and “ Öcalan’s isolation.” As a Board, we want to examine more cases where Meta later reversed its original decision. We believe these have a positive impact on users and can help Meta learn crucial lessons for the future.

As such, our Case Selection Committee has begun to select some of these cases to review as summary decisions. Our summary decisions set out why we consider the case to be significant and discuss why Meta might have made this error in the first place. Just like our standard decisions, summary decisions are binding on Meta. They are drafted and voted on by the Case Selection Committee, rather than the full Board, and do not consider public comments. Additional details about our decision types, including summary decisions, can be found in our Bylaws.

Today, we are publishing three summary decisions about praise for Bissau-Guinean anti-colonial leader Amílcar Cabral, a metaphorical statement against the then-president of Peru, and dehumanizing speech against a woman. You can read summaries of the three decisions below:

Anti-colonial leader Amílcar Cabral (2023-017-FB-UA)

Read the full summary decision here.

This case concerns Meta’s original decision to remove a Facebook post that consisted of a poem referencing Bissau-Guinean anti-colonial leader Amílcar Cabral. The post praised Cabral’s contributions to the anti-colonial struggle and its impact across the African continent. It was originally removed for violating the Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy. After the Board brought this case to Meta’s attention, the company determined that its removal was incorrect and restored the content to the platform. The company told the Board that the Bissau-Guinean leader Amílcar Cabral is not a designated individual in its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy but could be mistakenly associated with another person who is designated. As a result of its review in this case, Meta said it improved its enforcement practice “to avoid false positive removals of content praising the non-designated individual Amílcar Cabral.”

Metaphorical statement against the president of Peru (2023-016-FB-UA)

Read the full summary decision here.

This case concerns Meta’s original decision to remove a Facebook post which stated that “we” will hang Peru’s then-President Pedro Castillo, comparing this to the execution of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. The post says that this was a metaphorical statement, not a threat to be feared, and referred to the potential “suspension” of the president by a vote of the legislature amidst corruption allegations. Meta initially removed the post under its Violence and Incitement policy. However, after the Board brought this case to Meta’s attention, the company determined that the content did not violate its Violence and Incitement policy. Given the metaphorical nature of the statement and the context of impeachment proceedings against Pedro Castillo, who was president at the time, Meta concluded that the user appears to advocate "suspending" (or impeaching) the then-president, not committing violence against him. Therefore, the initial removal was incorrect, and Meta restored the content on Facebook.

Dehumanizing speech against a woman (2023-015-FB-UA)

Read the full summary decision here.

This case concerns Meta’s original decision to leave up a post that attacked an identifiable woman and compared her to a motor vehicle (a “truck”). The post was viewed more than two million times and prompted Facebook users to report the content to Meta more than 500 times. Under Meta’s Bullying and Harassment policy, the company removes content that attacks private figures with “[a]ttacks through negative physical descriptions” or that makes “[c]laims about sexual activity.” After the Board brought this case to Meta’s attention it removed the post. This case highlights a concern with how Meta fails to enforce its policy when a post contains bullying and harassment, which can be a significant deterrent to open online expression for women and other marginalized groups. Meta failed to remove the content which violates two elements of the Bullying and Harassment Community Standard, as an attack with “negative physical description” and “claims about sexual activity," despite the post receiving millions of views and hundreds of reports by Facebook users.

In the coming months, we will publish summary decisions on a regular basis. We will also continue to publish standard decisions, which follow the longer format we have traditionally used, as well as our first expedited decisions. Whenever we publish a new decision, we will highlight this on the ‘news’ tab of our website and issue the full decision on the ‘decisions’ tab.