Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision overturning Meta’s initial removal of an Instagram post containing a reclaimed slur used in an empowering context to affirm queer identity. Although Meta restored the content after the Board brought the case to its attention, the Board reviewed the original decision to address flaws in the enforcement of the Hate Speech policy. It found that Meta failed to recognize the context in which the slur was used and that the user, a verified account holder, should have received additional review under the cross-check system. The decision highlighted broader concerns with Meta’s moderation practices, particularly regarding exceptions for self-referential speech and inadequate support for moderators. The Board reiterated previous recommendations to improve enforcement accuracy and accountability, urged Meta to implement them fully, and overturned the original removal.

*The Oversight Board is a separate entity from Meta and will provide its independent judgment on both individual cases and questions of policy. Both the Board and its administration are funded by an independent trust. The Board has the authority to decide whether Facebook and Instagram should allow or remove content. The Board issues full decisions and summary decisions. Decisions, except summary decisions, are binding unless implementing them could violate the law. The Board can also choose to issue recommendations on the company’s content policies. Summary decisions are a transparency mechanism, providing information to the public on Meta’s decision making and the Board’s recommendations relating to cases where Meta reversed its original decision on its own accord, after receiving notice from the Board about the appeal.

Facts

In January 2022, a verified US-based Instagram user posted an image of a man holding a sign that read, “That’s Mr Faggot to you,” alongside a caption featuring a James Baldwin quote about love uniting humanity. The post received approximately 37,000 views. It was removed under Meta’s Hate Speech policy, which prohibits slurs but allows exceptions for self-referential or empowering use if intent is clarified.

The user appealed to the Oversight Board. After the Board brought the case to Meta’s attention, the company reassessed it, acknowledged the error, and reinstated the content, concluding it did not violate policy.

Decision Overview

On 18 December 2023, the Oversight Board issued a summary decision. The main issue was whether removing an Instagram post containing a reclaimed slur used in an empowering, queer-affirming context aligned with Meta’s policies and human rights responsibilities. Though the user did not submit an appeal statement, Meta reversed its decision once the Board highlighted the case, acknowledging no policy violation had occurred.

Despite this correction, the Board determined the case revealed systemic issues in Meta’s enforcement, particularly in handling exceptions for reclaimed slurs and the operation of the cross-check system. The Board noted the post came from a verified account and should have qualified for cross-check review. Meta failed to recognize the empowering context, underscored by the caption’s reference to “infinite queer beauty” and LGBTQIA+ solidarity. This pointed to significant weaknesses in how Meta supports moderators in applying policy exceptions.

The Board reiterated two prior recommendations: first, that Meta must better equip moderators to evaluate self-referential or empowering uses of slurs (Reclaiming Arabic Words decision); second, that moderators should assess whether potentially harmful content is shared to raise awareness or condemn hate (Two buttons meme decision). The Board observed that Meta had not implemented the first recommendation and had only partially implemented the second.

It also recalled its earlier recommendation for Meta to conduct accuracy assessments of Hate Speech policy enforcement, especially for speech addressing human rights violations (Wampum Belt decision), which Meta had only partially followed. Given the user was enrolled in cross-check, the Board reiterated the need for Meta to identify historically over-enforced communities and improve enforcement practices accordingly, and to create a mechanism for users to easily report enforcement errors. While Meta reported full implementation of the first measure, it had not acted on the second.

Accordingly, the Board overturned Meta’s initial removal and acknowledged the company’s eventual correction. It urged Meta to fully implement the Board’s recommendations to reduce enforcement failures and ensure fair treatment of users.