Board Calls On Meta To Protect Content On Women's Safety, In Cases From Brazil, India
August 19, 2026
Meta should expand policy exceptions and provide greater clarity for reviewers regarding awareness-raising content, the Oversight Board has found in assessing two cases involving videos of sexual harassment on public transportation in India and Brazil. These actions are particularly important given concerns about monetization and engagement-baiting that employ purported awareness-raising content.
Meta needs to bridge the gap between external policy and internal guidance on “creepshots,” non-consensual imagery taken of unsuspecting people, so reviewers can effectively moderate awareness-raising content.
The Board finds that neither post violated Meta’s community standards because they are awareness-raising content, and that removing them was inconsistent with the company’s human rights responsibilities. They should have received exceptions.
The Board also concludes that by making both posts unavailable for recommendation to other users, Meta is disregarding how stakeholders use its platforms for advocacy, including reaching policymakers and lawmakers, and compromising the reason for relevant policy exceptions.
Why This Matters
A 2012 survey of 143 countries found that three in five women worldwide experience sexual harassment on public transportation. Violence against women remains one of the “most … under-addressed human rights crises” globally, according to the World Health Organization. Meanwhile, social media is a powerful tool for advocacy and awareness-raising for social causes, particularly gender-based violence, and for survivors to share experiences, which is especially important where there is mistrust in formal reporting systems.
These two cases depict sexual harassment on public transportation in India and Brazil, where previous instances of sexual violence on public transportation have gained national attention. Through these cases, the Board is assessing Meta’s moderation practices when users intend to raise awareness about sexual harassment and gender-based violence.
About the Case
The first case involves a minute-long video posted to a prominent Indian news organization’s Facebook page in November 2025 in which an unidentifiable woman films a man sitting next to her on a bus in India. The man attempts to grope her by reaching under her shirt, and she verbally confronts him. The caption raises awareness about women’s safety.
A user reported the content on the day it was posted. Human reviewers and policy subject-matter experts determined it violated the Adult Sexual Exploitation Community Standard and removed it.
The second case involves an 18-second video from Brazil posted to Instagram in December 2025. The video – recorded by an unidentifiable woman sitting next to a man on a bus – shows the man holding his clothed genitalia, while he looks at his phone. The video’s text overlay and the caption provide the incident’s location and highlight concern over women’s safety and harassment on public transportation.
Two users reported the content on the day it was posted. After human review, it was removed under the Adult Sexual Exploitation policy for “creepshots.”
The posting users failed in their appeals against the respective decisions.
Following the Board selecting these cases, Meta determined its initial decisions were wrong and restored both posts with age-gating and a warning screen applied.
Key Findings
The Board finds that neither the India nor the Brazil case violates Meta’s community standards because they fall under policy exceptions for awareness-raising and body contours (which allows content showing the outline or shape of breasts, buttocks, or genitals through clothing or other coverings, if no other nudity is visible), respectively. Both should have remained on the platform with appropriate age restrictions and warning screens. These cases raise concerns about enforcement accuracy, especially considering that multiple human reviewers assessed both pieces of content.
Considering research that views public masturbation as a form of sexual harassment, the Board encourages Meta to expand its definition of sexual harassment under the Adult Sexual Exploitation policy awareness-raising exception beyond “non-consensual touching” to include other forms of sexual harassment.
The Board finds that removing both pieces of content was not consistent with Meta’s human rights responsibilities. Both posts serve awareness-raising purposes. Neither revealed the survivors’ identities, and each contained clear signals in their captions that they were raising awareness of sexual harassment and violence. Warning screens with age restrictions were legitimate restrictions. Warning screens allow users to have critical conversations on violence and safety while alerting other users to the discussion’s potential sensitivities. An age restriction protects minors from injurious material.
Coupling the “Mark as Sensitive” warning screens with the non-recommendable function was not a legitimate restriction on freedom of expression. The Board is concerned that by making both posts non-recommendable, Meta is ignoring the value of its platforms for survivors, advocates and intended audiences, including legislators – ultimately undermining the purpose of the relevant awareness-raising policy exception.
The Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity policy rationale lacks a clear and operational criteria for an awareness-raising exception. This must be codified for users and moderators. The Adult Sexual Exploitation policy is also insufficiently clear. It allows depiction of non-consensual sexual touching for awareness-raising, provided there is no “sensational context,” yet does not define “sensational context.”
The Board is also concerned about the disconnect between Meta’s external policies and the enforcement decision in the Brazil case. The Board agrees with Meta’s conclusion that the content did not violate the Adult Sexual Exploitation’s “creepshot” policy because it did not intend to humiliate or mock the individual filmed. However, internal guidance definitively states that any content depicting masturbation in public and which mocks, sexualizes or identifies an individual – including content intending to condemn the behavior – violates the “creepshots” policy, meaning reviewers had to remove it. At the same time, the rationale in the public-facing policy recognizes the importance for “survivors to share their experiences.” These internally and externally facing factors are not consistent and create confusion for content reviewers and users.
The Oversight Board’s Decision
The Board overturns Meta's decision to remove the content, which should have been left up with the appropriate age-gating and warning-screen restrictions. Neither piece of content should have been made non-recommendable.
The Board recommends that Meta:
- Expand the Adult Sexual Exploitation policy exception language from “content depicting non-consensual sexual touching” to “content depicting non-consensual sexual touching and/or other forms of sexual violence.”
- Include an exception for awareness-raising under the Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity policy, with the same consequences as the Adult Sexual Exploitation policy exception, including age-gating and warning screens.
- Align its internal guidance and external language on the “creepshots” policy line of the Adult Sexual Exploitation Community Standard to clarify that not all depictions of public masturbation are violative.
- Should decouple the “Mark as Sensitive” warning screen from the non-recommendable enforcement action.
Futher Information
To read public comments for this case, click here.
