Facebook’s Civil Rights Audit (ii) Process for Addressing Local Suppression. Civil rights groups encouraged Facebook to do more to address one common form of voter suppression: targeted, false claims about conditions at polling places that are designed to discourage or dissuade people from voting, or trick people into missing their opportunity to vote. This form of localized suppression includes things like false claims that a polling place is closed due to defective machines or that a voting location has been moved. (The purpose being to influence would-be voters not to go to their polling place to vote.) Facebook recognizes that if these statements are false they could unfairly interfere with the right to vote and would be in violation of its policy. The challenge historically, has been determining the veracity of localized content in a timely manner. Facebook has since begun exploring ways to distinguish between false claims about voting conditions that are suppressive, and accurate statements about problems at polling places that people (including voting rights advocates or election protection monitors) should be aware of. In June 2020, Facebook announced that it has committed to a process for evaluating the accuracy of statements about polling conditions and removing those statements that are confirmed to be false and violating its policies. Specifically, Facebook announced that it will continue working with state election authorities, including in the 72 hours prior to Election Day, when voter interference is most likely and also most harmful, to confirm or refute the accuracy of the statements, and remove them when they are confirmed false. Facebook’s expert voting rights consultants will also be available to share relevant regional and historical factors in real-time to help ensure the company approaches enforcement decisions with full awareness and context. The civil rights community (and the Auditors) view this as a positive step forward that could help reduce the amount of suppressive content on the platform. The Auditors and the civil rights community have some concern, however, that state election officials may not always provide accurate and timely information; indeed some state election officials have, at times, participated in suppression efforts, ignored them, or provided inaccurate information about voting conditions. Accordingly, the Auditors have recommended that Facebook supplement their process with other sources of reliable information on polling conditions including non-partisan election protection monitors and/or reliable news sources. 5. Improving Proactive Detection Time is of the essence during elections, and civil rights groups have pushed for Facebook’s prompt enforcement of its voting policies to minimize the impact of voter-suppressive content. Facebook has directed their enforcement teams to look for new tactics while also accounting for tactics seen on its platforms in past elections. In 2020, with the support of its voting rights consultants and the Auditors, Facebook’s enforcement teams are also being familiarized with common off-platform tactics from past elections (including tactics used in paper flyers, emails, and robocalls) to target communities of color and race and language minorities. For example in Philadelphia in 2008, flyers posted near Drexel University incorrectly warned that police officers would be at polling places looking for individuals with outstanding arrest warrants or parking tickets. If a similar hoax were to be disseminated on Facebook or Instagram in 2020, this would be a direct violation of Facebook’s Voter Interference Policy, prohibiting “content stating that voting participation may result in law enforcement 31