“Avoid mistakes that silence religious minorities:” Oversight Board overturns Facebook decision to remove post alleging RSS threat to Sikhs

The Facebook content Oversight Board has overturned the social media giant's decision to remove a post which claimed that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was threatening to kill Sikhs, and to repeat the 1984 Sikh riots..The Board ruled that Facebook's original decision to remove the post was not consistent with the company's Community Standards or its human rights responsibilities.."Mistakes that restrict expression on political issues are a serious concern. It is particularly worrying if such mistakes are widespread, and especially if this affects minority language speakers or religious minorities who may already be politically marginalised," the Board said. Errors (by Facebook( can silence minority voices that seek to counter hateful and discriminatory narratives, as in this case, it added. .The Oversight Board is a body which makes moderation decisions for content on social media platforms Facebook and Instagram..After the Board identified this case for review, but prior to it being assigned to a panel, Facebook realised that the content was removed in error and restored it.The Board nevertheless noted that the post highlighted the concerns of minority and opposition voices in India that are allegedly being discriminated against by the government.It is particularly important that Facebook takes steps to avoid mistakes that silence such voices, the Board said.“While recognising the unique circumstances of COVID-19, the Board argued that Facebook did not give adequate time or attention to reviewing this content. It stressed that users should be able to appeal cases to Facebook before they come to the Board and urged the company to prioritise restoring this capacity,” the decision stated..Th Board also recommended that Facebook should:- Translate its Community Standards and Internal Implementation Standards into Punjabi. Facebook should also aim to make its Community Standards accessible in all languages widely spoken by its users;- Restore both human review of content moderation decisions and access to a human appeals process to pre-pandemic levels as soon as possible, while protecting the health of Facebook's staff and contractors;- Increase public information on error rates by making this viewable by country and language for each Community Standard in its transparency reporting..Background.In November 2020, a user had shared a video post from Punjabi-language online media Global Punjab TV and an accompanying text. The post featured a 17-minute interview with Professor Manjit Singh, described as "a social activist and supporter of the Punjabi culture."In its post, Global Punjab TV included the caption "RSS is the new threat. Ram Naam Satya Hai. The BJP moved towards extremism." The media company also included an additional description "New Threat. Ram Naam Satya Hai! The BJP has moved towards extremism. Scholars directly challenge Modi!" The content was posted during India's mass farmer protests and briefly touched on the reasons behind the protests and praised them.The user added accompanying text when sharing Global Punjab TV's post, in which they stated that the CIA designated the RSS a "fanatic Hindu terrorist organisation" and that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was once its president. The user wrote that the RSS was threatening to kill Sikhs, a minority religious group in India, and to repeat the "deadly saga" of 1984 when Hindu mobs attacked Sikhs..The post was up for 14 days and viewed fewer than 500 times before it was reported by another user for "terrorism". A human reviewer determined that the post violated the Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organisations and took down the content, which also triggered an automatic restriction on the use of the account for a fixed period of time. In its notification to the user, Facebook noted that its decision was final and could not be reviewed due to a temporary reduction in its review capacity due to COVID-19. For this reason, the user appealed to the Oversight Board.After the Case Selection Committee identified this case for review, but prior to it being assigned to a panel, Facebook determined that the content was removed in error and restored it. The Board nevertheless proceeded in assigning the case to panel..Standards applied.The Board at the outset noted that Facebook might not have restored the post had Board not identified the case.The Oversight Board considered three standards to decide the matter - Facebook's Community Standards, Facebook’s values and Human Rights standards..User Statement.The user indicated to the Board that the post was not threatening or criminal but simply repeated the video's substance and reflected its tone. The user complained about account restrictions imposed on them. They suggested that Facebook should simply delete problematic videos and avoid restricting users' accounts, unless they engage in threatening or criminal behaviour. The user also claimed that thousands of people engage with their content and called on the account to be restored immediately..Facebook Defence.According to Facebook, following a single report against the post, the person who reviewed the content wrongly found a violation of the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations Community Standard. Facebook informed the Board that the user's post included no reference to individuals or organisations designated as dangerous. It followed that the post contained no violating praise.Facebook explained that the error was due to the length of the video (17 minutes), the number of speakers (two), the complexity of the content and its claims about various political groups. ue to the volume of content, Facebook stated that content reviewers are not always able to watch videos in full. Facebook was unable to specify the part of the content that the reviewer found to violate the company's rules.While the user appealed the decision to Facebook, they were informed that Facebook could not review the post again due to staff shortages caused by COVID-19..DecisionOn Community Standards: The Board concluded that Facebook's original decision to remove the content was inconsistent with its Dangerous Individuals and Organisations Community Standard.The content referred to the BJP as well as the RSS and several of its leaders. Facebook explained that none of these groups or individuals are designated as "dangerous" under its Community Standards, and it was unable to identify the specific words in the content that led to its removal. The Board noted that, even if these organisations had been designated as dangerous, the content clearly criticised them.The content did praise one group – Indian farmers who were protesting. It therefore appears that inadequate time or attention was given to reviewing this content,” the decision said.Facebook explained to the Board that account restrictions are automatic. These are imposed once a violation of the Community Standards has been determined and depend on the individual's history of violations. This means that a person reviewing the content is not aware of whether removal will lead to an account restriction and is not involved in selecting that restriction.“The consequences of enforcement mistakes can be severe and expresses concern that account-level restrictions were wrongly applied in this case,” the Board said..On Facebook’s values:.The Board found that Facebook's decision to remove the content was inconsistent with its values of "Voice", "Dignity" and "Safety". The content linked to a media report and related to important political issues, including commentary on the alleged violation of minority rights and the silencing of opposition by senior BJP politicians and the RSS. Therefore, the incorrect removal of the post undermined the values of "Voice" and "Dignity"..On Human Rights responsibilities:.The Board said that Facebook's application of the Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organisations was inconsistent with the company's human rights responsibilities and its publicly stated commitments to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP)s.“Principles 11 and 13 call on businesses to avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts that may arise from their own activities or their relationships with other parties, including state actors, and to mitigate them” the decision said.The Board also noted that it had previously raised concerns with the accessibility of the Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organisations, including around Facebook's interpretation of "praise", and the process for designating dangerous individuals and organisations. Precise rules, it said are important to constrain discretion and prevent arbitrary decision-making and also to safeguard against bias.“The consequences of violating a rule, e.g. suspension of account functionalities or account disabling, must also be clear. The Board is concerned that information on account restrictions is spread across many locations, and not all set out in the Community Standards as one would expect. It is important to give users adequate notice and information when they violate rules so they can adjust their behaviour accordingly,” the Board said..The Board also raised concerns that the Community Standards are not translated into Punjabi, a language widely spoken globally with 30 million speakers in India.“Facebook's Internal Implementation Standards are also not available in Punjabi for moderators working in this language. This is likely to compound the problem of users not understanding the rules, and increase the likelihood of moderators making enforcement errors. The possible specific effects on a minority population raise human rights concerns,” the Board noted.The Board also underscored that the importance of getting such decisions right especially when the political context is taken into account.The political context in India when this post was made, with mass anti-government farmer protests and increasing governmental pressure on social media platforms to remove related content, underscores the importance of getting decisions right. In this case, the content related to the protests and the silencing of opposition voices. It also included a link to an interview from a minority language media outlet on the topics,” the Board observed.Dominant platforms should avoid undermining the expression of minorities who are protesting their government and uphold media pluralism and diversity, it held."The account restrictions, which wrongfully excluded the user from the platform during this critical period, were particularly disproportionate," it concluded. While Facebook maintained that its moderation in India is independent of government influence, the Board said that Facebook’s assessments should take into account the potential for coordinated campaigns by governments and non-state actors to maliciously report dissent.In view of the above, the Board overturned the Facebook decision to take down the post..Read the decision of the Oversight Board here.