Descrição do caso
In August 2025, a leading German news outlet posted an image on its Facebook page of the torn Russian passport of an individual, with the biographical data (biodata) page clearly visible. The individual’s personally identifiable information (PII) can be seen in the photo. The post has a caption in Russian, describing them as a dual German and Russian citizen convicted of treason in Russia for taking photos of a military unit from their apartment window. The caption adds that they first tried to set the passport alight, but it failed to burn because the wind put out the fire, after which they tore up the passport and threw it on the ground. The caption also reports that the person said the following when they tore up the passport: “I am ashamed of Russia. I do not want to be a citizen of Russia, which tortures so many people.”
Meta’s Privacy Violations Community Standard prohibits the sharing of PII (defined as “information that uniquely identifies an individual”) of the posting user or of other people. A few hours after the content was posted, Meta’s classifier identified the post as potentially violating. Human moderators reviewed the post and escalated it to the company’s subject matter experts. These experts granted a newsworthiness allowance to keep up the post. Meta’s newsworthiness allowance allows content that “may violate” Meta’s Community Standards to remain on the platform if “keeping it visible is in the public interest.”
Meta then referred the case to the Board, stating that the post “raises important questions” about whether the Privacy Violations Community Standard “should be more flexible in allowing individuals to share their own personally identifiable information (PII), especially in the context of protest.”
The Board selected this case to assess how Meta’s privacy policy should consider the expressive value of content showing PII. This case falls within the Board’s Elections and Civic Space strategic priority.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The impact of Meta’s privacy policy on the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, including protest, on the company’s platforms.
- The impact of Meta’s newsworthiness allowance on the right to privacy.
- Risks associated with disclosing passport biodata details.
- Journalistic standards on protecting the privacy of a report’s subject.
- Research into the tradeoffs between strict and permissive privacy protections and their respective impact on political expression.
- Research regarding the accuracy of content moderation systems in assessing if an individual is sharing their own PII and if such sharing is in the context of protest.
In its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to this case.
