The Oversight Board, a global body of experts that reviews Meta’s most difficult and significant decisions related to content on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, picked two new cases for consideration.
The Board is, at least currently, limited in capacity. Therefore, when picking new cases, it prioritizes ones that have the potential to affect lots of users around the world, are of critical importance to public discourse or raise important questions about Meta’s policies.
This time around, the topic of picked cases is the debate around gender identity and how it has been portrayed by two videos shared on the platform:
“In the first case, a Facebook user in the United States posted a video of a woman confronting a transgender woman for using the women’s bathroom. The post refers to the person being confronted as a man and asks why it is permitted for them to use a women’s bathroom.
“In the second case, an Instagram account posted a video of a transgender girl winning a female sports competition in the United States, with some spectators vocally disapproving of the result. The post refers to the athlete as a boy, questioning whether they are female.”
The Board clarifies that both posts were shared this year and were subsequently reported multiple times under Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment policy. Meta didn’t remove any of the videos posted on Facebook and Instagram, as it found them in compliance with its Community Standards.
Experts on the Board explained Meta’s stance on the issue:
“Meta’s Hate Speech Community Standard prohibits direct attacks targeting a person or group of people on the basis of protected characteristics, including sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, with ‘exclusion or segregation in the form of calls for action, statements of intent, aspirational or conditional statements, or statements advocating or supporting [exclusion].’ The Hate Speech policy does not include misgendering as a form of prohibited ‘attack.’”
Even if the first case would be found in violation of Hate Speech policy, there is a “newsworthiness” exception which would be applied, Meta says. The company argues that “transgender people’s access to bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity is the subject of considerable political debate in the United States.” It further adds that the content of videos didn’t breach Bullying and Harassment policies either.
The user who appealed the post in the first case argues that the video was transphobic, while the user who appealed the post in the second case argues that the video attacks and harasses the athlete with language that in their view violates Meta’s Community Standards.
The Oversight Board selected these cases to assess whether Meta’s approach to moderating discussions around gender identity respects users’ freedom of expression and the rights of transgender and non-binary people.
As part of the standard process, the Board would like to hear the opinion of the public. Public comments can be submitted via the Board’s website by September 12. The expert panel would specifically appreciate comments that address the following issues:
- The impacts of Meta’s Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment policies on freedom of expression around gender identity issues, and the rights of transgender people, including minors.
- Technical challenges in enforcing bullying and harassment policies at-scale, the effectiveness of self-reporting requirements and their impacts on people targeted by bullying or harassment, and comparisons to alternative enforcement approaches.
- The sociopolitical context in the United States concerning freedom of expression and the rights of transgender people, especially for access to single-sex spaces and participation in sporting events.
Despite being an independent entity, the Oversight Board has significant authority that earned it the nickname “Meta’s supreme court.” It can overturn the company’s decisions in particular cases and issue policy recommendations to Meta.
Even though these recommendations are not binding, Meta must officially respond within 60 days, and it often leads to changes in Meta’s internal policies.