Facebook’s Civil Rights Audit posting content) in a manner that they thought was discriminatory and wrongly decided because of errors made by Facebook content moderators. After continued criticism, including by the civil rights community, Facebook committed in the 2019 Audit Report to improving the transparency and consistency of its appeals decision-making. As a result, Facebook has made a number of changes to its appeals system and the notices provided to users explaining their appeal options. These changes include providing: (a) better notice to users when a content decision has been made; (b) clearer and more transparent explanations as to why the content was removed (or not removed); and (c) the opportunity for users to make more informed choices about whether they want to appeal the content decision. Specifically, Facebook has changed many of the interface and message screens that users see throughout the appeals process to provide more explanations, context, and information. Facebook also reports that it studies the accuracy of content decisions and seeks to identify the underlying causes of reviewer errors—whether they be policy gaps, deficiencies in guidance or training, or something else. Facebook is exploring whether adjustments to the structure of its appeals process could improve accuracy while still being operational on the massive scale at which Facebook operates. (ii) Appeals Recommendations • Voter/Census Interference Policy appeals: the details of this recommendation were presented in the User Reporting & Reporter Appeals section of the Elections & Census chapter. • Appeals data: Facebook’s Community Standards Enforcement Report details by policy area how much content was appealed, and how much content was restored after appeals. While this transparency is useful, Facebook should do more with its appeals data. The company should more systematically examine its appeals data by violation type and use these insights to internally assess where the appeals process is working well, where it may need additional resources, and where there may be gaps, ambiguity, or unanticipated consequences in policies or enforcement protocols. For example, if the data revealed that decisions on certain categories of hate speech were being overturned on appeal at a disproportionate rate, Facebook could use that information to help identify areas where reviewers need additional guidance or training. • Description of Community Standards: As part of the enforcement and appeals user experience described above, Facebook has done more to inform users that content was taken down and to describe the Community Standard that was violated. While the increased transparency is important, the Auditors have found that Facebook’s descriptions of the Community Standards are inconsistent. For example: о I­ n some contexts, Facebook describes the hate speech policy by saying, “We have these standards to protect certain groups of people from being described as less than human.” о In other circumstancs (such as describing violatons by groups), Facebook describes the hate speech policy as “content that directly attacks people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender or gender identity, or serious disabilities or diseases.” 47