Facebook’s Civil Rights Audit is a gap in policy guidance that has resulted in hate attacks against one religion, race, gender identity, falling through the cracks, based on the particular way those attacks manifested, etc. Because the data would focus on the content of posts and the reasons that content violates Facebook’s hate speech policies (rather than anything about the users reporting or posting it), the Auditors are confident that this kind of data collection need not involve collection of any data on users or otherwise implicate privacy concerns. Facebook and the Auditors have repeatedly heard concerns from civil rights groups that particular forms of hate are prevalent on the platform but the absence of data for analysis and study seems to undercut efforts to document and define the problem, identify its source, and explore potential mitigation. Take anti-Muslim hate speech, for example. For years the civil rights community has expressed increasing alarm at the level of anti-Muslim hate speech on (and off) the platform. While Christchurch was an inflection point for the Muslim community and its relationship to Facebook, the community’s concerns with Facebook existed long before and extend beyond that tragedy. From the organization of events designed to intimidate members of the Muslim community at gathering places, to the prevalence of content demonizing Islam and Muslims, and the use of Facebook Live during the Christchurch massacre, civil rights advocates have expressed alarm that Muslims feel under siege on Facebook — and have criticized Facebook for not doing enough to address it. (Of course, this is not to say that Muslims are alone in experiencing persistent hate on the platform or the sense that they are under attack. Indeed, hate speech and efforts to incite violence targeting African Americans, Jews, Asians and the LGBTQ and LatinX communities, to name a few, have gained national attention in recent months. But, Facebook has not yet publicly studied or acknowledged the particular ways anti-Muslim bigotry manifests on its platform in the same manner it has discussed its root cause analysis of hate speech false positives removals of the posts of African American users and publicly launched pilots to test potential remedies). Facebook’s existing policy prohibits attacks against people based on their religion, including those disguised as attacks against religious concepts (e.g., attacks against “Islam” which use pronouns like “they” or depict people). However, reports from civil rights groups and anecdotal examples suggest that these kinds of attacks persist on the platform and may seem to be more frequent than attacks mentioning Christianity, Judaism, or other religious concepts, making Facebook’s distinction between attacks targeted at people versus concepts all the more blurry (and potentially problematic) when it comes to anti-Muslim sentiment. Having data on the prevalence of anti-Muslim hate speech on the platform, what kinds of content is being flagged as anti-Muslim hate speech, and what percentage and types of content is being removed as anti-Muslim hate speech would be incredibly useful in defining the issue and identifying potential remedies. The Auditors recommend that Facebook (1) capture data on which protected characteristic is referenced by the perpetrator in the attacking post, and then (2) study the issue and evaluate potential solutions or ways to better distinguish between discussion of religious concepts and dehumanizing or hateful attacks masquerading as references to religious concepts or ideologies. 57