Os conteúdos ainda não estão disponíveis em Português (Portugal)

Reporting on Somaliland Current Affairs Bundle

ATUALIZADO 13/01/2026
Today, July 1, 2025, the Oversight Board selected a case bundle appealed by a Facebook user regarding four posts in Somali published to a Facebook page that describes itself as belonging to freelance journalism.
All four posts discuss politics in Somaliland, which declared its independence from Somalia in 1991 but is not recognized by any country. Two of the posts are about Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdillahi's recent foreign policy engagements, including photos of a foreign trip with captions stating that media coverage was prohibited. Two other posts relate to a public, official ceremony in Somaliland and a political conference, with descriptive captions.
Upon initial review, Meta took down this content and unpublished the Facebook page for violating our policy on Hateful Conduct, as laid out in the Community Standards. However, upon additional review, we determined we removed this content in error, reinstated the posts, and re-published the page.
We will implement the Board's decision once it has finished deliberating, and will update this post accordingly. Please see the Board's website for the decision when they issue it.
Read the board’s case selection summary
Case decision
We welcome the Oversight Board's decision on this case bundle. The Board has overturned Meta’s original decisions to remove the Facebook page and the four posts. Meta previously reinstated all of this content so no additional action will be taken.
When it is technically and operationally possible to do so, we will also take action on content that is identical and in the same context as this case. For more information, please see our Newsroom post about how we implement the Board's decisions.
After conducting a review of the recommendations provided by the Board, we will update this post with initial responses to those recommendations.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1 (implementing in part)
To better inform users about the rules applying to pages, Meta should create a consolidated resource in its Transparency Center to explain its content policies and enforcement guidance, including the strike system, and ensure this is easily accessible for page administrators.
The Board will consider this recommendation implemented when Meta creates this consolidated resource in the Transparency Center and demonstrates its sign-posting to page administrators.
Our commitment: We will update our strikes related Transparency Center page to consolidate additional information that may be relevant for page administrators, improving accessibility while continuing to ensure that our Transparency Center pages remain streamlined and relevant for users across our platforms.
Considerations: While we currently share a number of details about our strikes system and process for removing pages that repeatedly violate Community Standards on our Transparency Center and elsewhere, we recognize that there may be additional ways to make this information more accessible for page administrators. Our existing Help Center sections also provide details for page administrators that may be useful when shared in conjunction with our Transparency Center information about our strikes system.
We want our Transparency Center pages to provide clear details so that users have the necessary information to understand our policy and strikes approach, while also ensuring that we are not sharing details that potentially allow circumvention of strikes or maximizing violations. As such, we will update our existing Transparency Center pages to provide links to relevant pages in our Help Center where relevant—consolidating the information and increasing accessibility for page administrators.
To ensure access to effective remedy, Meta should revise its appeal processes to prohibit the same human reviewers from assessing appeals against their own decisions, including on page unpublication. This should be done in a way that does not result in an increase in appeal review jobs being auto-closed.
The Board will consider this recommendation implemented when Meta provides the Board with documentation confirming that these rules have been updated, and data showing no associated decline in the rate of appeals reviewed.
Our commitment: While some portions of our appeals workflows already prohibit the same human reviewers from assessing appeals against their own decisions, including when pages are removed, we will assess whether we can expand this practice across additional workflows without increasing the number of appeal review jobs being auto-closed.
Considerations: In specific appeals workflows, we have already implemented the requirement that appeals be reviewed by a different human reviewer than the one who made the original decision. Implementing this requirement has introduced an additional layer of complexity to our systems, which could lead to increases in technical errors as well as increased operational burden that can lead to delays in review of content. Expanding this requirement to other workflows, while meeting our regulatory and legal obligations and preventing an increase in auto-closed appeals, could add further complexity.
Alternatively, we may consider whether this requirement should be reserved for specific appeals workflows which would benefit most from additional safeguards, such as those handled by teams that specialize in highly nuanced or sensitive content.
We will provide updates on the status of this assessment in future reports to the Board.
To help ensure that pages are not erroneously unpublished, Meta should update its General Secondary Review (GSR) ranking algorithm to explicitly prioritize page unpublication decisions for in-house review.
The Board will consider this recommendation implemented when Meta provides the Board with documentation outlining this new prioritization criteria, along with data demonstrating any associated shifts in how frequently unpublishing decisions are reviewed under the GSR program.
Our commitment: We commit to enhancing the GSR ranking algorithm’s criteria to focus on profiles, pages, and groups, which we consider “complex objects”. Specifically, we will aim to adjust our ranking algorithm such that these complex objects flagged for severe policy violations may be escalated for additional review by specialized teams before final enforcement.
Considerations: While we recognize the importance of ensuring that pages are not erroneously unpublished, our current focus within the General Secondary Review (GSR) program is on improving the review process for complex objects and severe policies across all content types. We believe that prioritizing reviews based on the complexity and severity of potential violations will have a significant impact on the accuracy and fairness of our enforcement decisions. However, implementing this recommendation presents certain challenges, as it first requires us to address foundational improvements across Mistake Prevention’s systems more broadly to ensure complex objects flagged for severe violations are appropriately identified and escalated. Addressing these challenges will take some time, but this work is necessary to ensure that any changes to prioritization criteria are effective and sustainable. As we continue to enhance our GSR processes, we will look for opportunities to make information about our review approach more transparent and to share relevant updates with the Board.
To protect journalism in regions where media freedom is repressed, Meta should develop new criteria and systems to proactively enroll pages or accounts engaged in journalism in these regions to Sensitive Entity Secondary Review (SSR). Follower thresholds should be adjusted relative to market size, and existing criteria for news organization designation should not be a bar to entry. Trusted authorities like the Committee to Protect Journalists' impunity index should be used to prioritize high-risk regions.
The Board will consider this recommendation implemented when Meta shares data and information with the Board detailing its new designation criteria for journalistic SSR protections and the number of resulting new designations per market.
Our commitment: We are committed to expanding the inclusion of journalists, human rights defenders, and activists in our Sensitive Entity Secondary Review (SSR) lists, with a particular focus on regions where media freedom is at risk. In partnership with our Human Rights Policy and Trusted Partners, as well as our teams who specialize in risk detection, we will continue to refine our criteria and explore new methods to identify and protect journalists, particularly in regions where media freedom is repressed.
Considerations: We recognize the importance of protecting journalists, especially in regions where media freedom is at risk, and are committed to expanding the inclusion of journalists in our Sensitive Entity Secondary Review (SSR) lists. With that said, proactively identifying journalists on our platform presents significant challenges. Our current approach relies on a combination of anecdotal factors and qualitative evaluation of potential journalists’ accounts. The team responsible for enrolling users into SSR collaborates with Human Rights Policy and the Trusted Partner Program to include journalists, human rights defenders, and activists in SSR once they have received a flag regarding historical over-enforcement or an emerging risk of over-enforcement. In the future, we will work with our operational teams specializing in risk detection to explore new signals that could help us proactively identify individuals likely to experience over-enforcement, including journalists. While follower thresholds are reviewed, inclusion in SSR is primarily based on the potential sensitivity of the user or entity rather than quantitative metrics. We will continue to refine our processes and leverage trusted external sources to help prioritize high-risk regions. As we make progress, we will share updated criteria on new SSR designations with the Board.