Orwellian Oversight or Protection of Minors?

The Facebook Oversight board’s decision on Case 2021-016-FB-FBR was a recent decision to remove a post published by a Swedish user of a stock photo of an underage girl with her face hidden in a provocative pose. Captioned beneath it was a description of the rapes of two unnamed minors, with specific information about their ages and municialities, arguing the Swedish criminal justice sytem was too lenient on the case, incentivizing such crimes. Posted in August, 2019, Meta removed it in September 2021 citing rules of sexual exploitation, abuse and nudity. This was after the post received around two million views, 2,000 comments and 20,000 reactions. Of the two million views, eight cited it as hate speech. The relevant parties included the Swedish user, the Oversight Board and the public whose opinions challenged it.

Source: Facebook Oversight Board Following the decision, Meta made a distinction between ‘reporting’ on rape and sexual exploitation, as the context of the post made clear an issue of public interest that was a condemnation of sexual exploitation of a minor. Because the company did and does not publicly state their policies distinguishing ‘depiction’ and ‘reporting’, Facebook’s Oversight Board decided that it should be restored. The board ruled in favor of free speech, meaning that people are able to report on cases as appropriate. Interestingly, the Facebook Oversight Committee was extremely thorough in citing the standards and values of their organization. Facebook community standards clearly stated the Child Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Nudity policy, which outlines Meta’s values of “safety, privacy and dignity”. They cite the case information by the right to freedom and expression from Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); Interest of the Child, Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; Right to physical and mental health from Article 12 of the ICESCR, where children have the right to be protected against mental violence; and the Right to privacy from Article 17 ICCPR. These cases defined by these precedents cited the interest of the public as an ethos for the decision. The Facebook Oversight Committee also met with a virtual roundtable of advocacy groups to better understand what the public might find harmful, secondary exploitation of survivors, and what some survivors felt about the post and its impacts. The board also looked to the user to submit a statement, which they refused. This act represented an opportunity for ample voices on either side to be heard. ​ Additionally, the board looked to users to better understand how they wanted to see their platform used. Users Brett Prince felt that:

FB/Meta should not continue to act in this hyper-monitoring fashion which creates unnecessary societal divisiveness and fear. Thought and speech policing is not the true function of a private company. Diversity of viewpoints is desirable…Orwellian to stifle free speech and free thought in this overkill manner.

Thinking in this manner, the users felt that monitoring post by post would be an overreach of power from Facebook’s algorithm. However, the Swedish user’s page had 100,000 followers, which begs the question of influence. If it was hyper-monitoring, it would suggest scrutiny of every post, rather than maintenance of several larger accounts. The account had received five piece removals, demonstrating a repeat offense. Only eight of the two million viewers cited it as hate speech. When appealed, the strike applied to the account was reversed. This policy demonstrates incongruous action, where Facebook did not stand by a clear policy of what to do.

Facebook's policy disallows the discussion of child sexual exploitation only to the extent that it “threatens, depicts, praises, supports, provides instructions for, makes statements of intent, admits participation in or shares links of” such exploitation. In the context of the journalist's post, sharing comments from the perpetrator referring to the minor in sexually explicit terms cannot be characterized as praising or supporting the abuse. On the contrary, it was clearly quoted in condemnation of the perpetrator's actions.

~ Jeremy Malcolm

On this side Facebook was acting in its purview. The user clearly violated the conditions agreed upon with the creation of an account. Facebook requires all users to agree to terms and conditions as an agreement to be on their platform. If violated, it seems clear that the user broke a rule of the application. When coming to a personal conclusion regarding the case, it is clear that there is a fine line between reporting and spreading news. Who is allowed to report - is there a designation necessary for citizen reporting? What is their influence? In this case, I felt that the ethics revolved around the descriptions of the rapes in the municipalities. The question of their safety draws into a question of what is appropriate to share about a minor’s case. If that information was available in public record from the criminal justice system, then the post would be accurate reporting. In the case that it wasn’t, it clearly violated the Facebook code, because it exploited the information for a story. The right to punch extends until the impact with another’s face. In this case, the right to share a private story extends to the protection of those whom the story was trying to help. Regarding the image, Facebook set an age minimum of thirteen years of age. That in itself is a question of integrity. Should the policy of what can be posted be amended, or who can see it? Those ideals in themselves are inherently conflicting. Free speech was upheld in this case. It was a win for citizenship journalism and the right to make a statement, especially in an attempt to bring about justice. The court was right to restore the post and the user was right to post it. Perhaps greater definitions around journalism and posting would allow for a more constructive discussion around child sexual exploitation to promote progress over misaligned restriction. ​To read more, check out the case: www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-P9PR9RSA/