New Decision Presses Meta to Strengthen Rules on Child Marriage-Related Content

10 अकतूबर 2024

In the case of a video in which a beautician from Iran prepares a 14-year-old girl for her wedding, the Board agrees with Meta that the content should have been taken down under the Human Exploitation policy. However, the Board does not agree with Meta’s reason for removal, which was to use the spirit of the policy allowance. Rather, the Board finds the content clearly violated the Human Exploitation Community Standard rule for facilitation of child marriage by materially aiding this harmful practice. Child marriage, which disproportionately affects girls, is a form of forced marriage and gender-based violence and discrimination. The Board’s recommendations seek to clarify Meta’s public language and internal guidance to ensure such content is removed, and to specify that forced marriages include child marriage and involve children aged under 18 years.

About the Case

In January 2024, an Instagram user posted a short video on their account, which gives details of beauty salon services in Iran. In the video, a beautician gives a child a make-up session in preparation for the child’s marriage. Speaking in Farsi, the child confirms her age is 14 years and when asked by the beautician, she reveals the groom’s family made persistent requests before her father “gave her to them.” The beautician and child talk about prioritizing marriage over education and admire the results of the make-up transformation. Text overlay states the child is the youngest bride of the year, while the post’s caption includes details of the beautician’s services for brides. The content was viewed about 10.9 million times.

Background research commissioned by the Board suggests the girl in the video may be acting in the role of a child about to get married, although this is not clear.

A total of 203 users reported the content over a month. Following rounds of human review, Meta concluded it did not violate any policies so the video should stay up. The content was also initially flagged by Meta’s High Risk Early Review Operations system based on the high likelihood of it going viral, and it was escalated to Meta through the Trusted Partners program, which involves expert stakeholders reporting potentially violating content. Following a new round of escalated review by Meta’s policy and subject matter experts, Meta overturned its initial decision and removed the post for violating its Human Exploitation policy. Meta then referred the case to the Board.

Child marriage, which the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights defines as “any formal marriage or informal union between a child under the age of 18 and an adult or another child,” is considered a form of forced marriage, and as a human rights violation by international and regional bodies.

Iranian law allows for child marriage, with legal ages set for 13 for girls and 15 for boys, although marriage is permitted in Iran before these ages in certain circumstances.

Key Findings

The Board finds the content explicitly broke the rules of the Human Exploitation Community Standard for facilitating forced marriages because the video clearly showed a beautician providing material aid to a 14-year-old girl, therefore facilitating child marriage. While Meta removed the video, it did so for another reason: a spirit of the policy allowance under the Human Exploitation policy. This policy does not specifically prohibit support for child marriage, but its rationale states the policy’s goal is to remove all forms of “exploitation of humans,” which Meta believed should include “support” for child marriage. In this case, Meta used the spirit of the policy allowance, which it can apply when a strict application of a Community Standard produces inconsistent results with the policy’s rationale and objectives. The Board disagrees with Meta on the reason for removal because the beautician’s actions were a form of facilitation, with the post advertising beauty services for girls getting married, aiding the practice.

There is no public definition of “facilitation” given by Meta although its internal guidance to reviewers has the following: “content that coordinates the transportation, transfer, harboring of victims before or during the exploitation.” The Board finds this definition is too narrow. Given the policy’s purpose, the Board’s own interpretation of “facilitation” – to include the provision of any type of material aid (which includes “services”) to enable exploitation – should be applied to this case as well as to Meta’s internal guidance. This would mean Meta could remove similar content without relying on the spirit of the policy allowance.

The Human Exploitation policy does not explicitly state that forced marriages include child marriage. Additionally, while Meta’s internal definition for reviewers states that minors cannot consent and there is additional guidance around consent signs and human trafficking, neither the internal nor the public language are clear enough. Meta should therefore specify in the public language of the policy that child marriage is a form of forced marriage and update its internal guidance to explain that children are people under 18 who cannot fully consent to marriage or informal unions.

The Board believes the spirit of the policy should be applied rarely because there are legality concerns over the allowance. Reiterating a previous recommendation, the Board urges Meta to complete its implementation of a public explanation of this allowance.

The Oversight Board’s Decision

The Oversight Board upholds Meta’s decision to take down the content.

The Board recommends that Meta:

• Modify the Human Exploitation policy to explicitly state that forced marriages include child marriage.
• Additionally, modify the policy to define child marriage in line with international human rights standards to include marriage and informal unions of children under 18 years of age.
• Provide explicit guidance to human reviewers about child marriage being included in the definition of forced marriages.
• Expand the definition of “facilitation” in internal guidelines to include the provision of any type of material aid (which includes “services”) to enable exploitation.

For Further Information

To read the full decision in Farsi, click here.

To read public comments for this case, click here.

समाचार पर लौटें