Facebook’s Civil Rights Audit о And in the contexts of violations by a page, Facebook describes hate speech as “verbal abuse directed at individuals.” In some cases Facebook reports that these differences are driven by Facebook’s attempt to give users a description of the specific subsection of the policy that they violated to help improve user understanding and better explain the appeals process. In other instances, however, the differences are driven by inconsistent use of language across different products (e.g., Groups, Pages). This is problematic because using inconsistent language to describe the relevant policy may create confusion for users trying to understand what Facebook’s policies prohibit and whether/how their content may have violated those policies. Such confusion leaves Facebook susceptible to criticism around the consistency of its review. The Auditors recommend that Facebook ensure its Community Standards are described accurately and consistently across different appeals contexts (e.g., appeals regarding an individual post, a violation by a group, a violation by a page, etc.) • Frequently Reported Accounts: The high-volume nature of Facebook’s content moderation review process means that when an account attracts an unusually large number of reports, some of those reports are likely to result in at least some content being found to violate the Community Standards — even if the content is unobjectionable. Anti-racism activists and other users have reported being subjected to coordinated reporting attacks designed to exploit this potential for content reviewing errors. Those users have reported difficulty managing the large number of appeals, resulting in improper use restrictions and other penalties. Facebook’s current appeal system does not address the particular vulnerabilities of users subjected to coordinated reporting campaigns (e.g., reporting everything a user posts in the hope that some will be found violating and subject the user to penalties). The Auditors recommend that Facebook adopt mechanisms to ensure that accounts that receive a large number of reports, and that are frequently successful upon appeal, are not subjected to penalties as a result of inaccurate content moderation decisions and coordinated reporting campaigns. (iii) Penalties. Facebook’s penalty system—the system for imposing consequences on users for repeatedly violating Facebook’s Community Standards—has also been criticized for lacking transparency or notice before penalties are imposed, and leaving users in “Facebook jail” for extended periods seemingly out of nowhere. The company has faced criticism that penalties often seem disproportionate and to come without warning. Since the last Audit Report, Facebook has made significant changes to its penalty system. To provide users greater context and ability to understand when a violation might lead to a penalty, Facebook has created an “account status” page on which users can view prior violations (including which Community Standard was violated) and an explanation of any restrictions imposed on their account as a result of those violations (including when those restrictions expire). Facebook similarly improved the messaging it sends to users to 48