G6(b). Process for content moderation appeals

The company should offer users clear and predictable appeals mechanisms and processes for appealing content-moderation actions.

Elements:

1. Does the company clearly disclose that it offers affected users the ability to appeal content-moderation actions?
2. Does the company clearly disclose that it notifies the users who are affected by a content-moderation action?
3. Does the company clearly disclose a timeframe for notifying affected users when it takes a content-moderation action?
4. Does the company clearly disclose when appeals are not permitted?
5. Does the company clearly disclose its process for reviewing appeals?
6. Does the company clearly disclose its timeframe for reviewing appeals?
7. Does the company clearly disclose that such appeals are reviewed by at least one human not involved in the original content-moderation action?
8. Does the company clearly disclose what role automation plays in reviewing appeals?
9. Does the company clearly disclose that the affected users have an opportunity to present additional information that will be considered in the review?
10. Does the company clearly disclose that it provides the affected users with a statement outlining the reason for its decision?
11. Does the company clearly disclose evidence that it is addressing content moderation appeals?

Affected user  — The user who posted content that was restricted by a moderation action or the user associated with a user account that was restricted by a moderation action.

Appeal —  For RDR’s purposes, this definition of appeals includes processes through which users request a formal change to a content moderation or account restriction decision made by a company.

Clearly disclose(s) — The company presents or explains its policies or practices in its public-facing materials in a way that is easy for users to find and understand.

Content-moderation action — Content-moderation actions are steps platforms take to restrict the visibility of content or the capabilities of a user account. They may be performed by humans, automated systems, or a mix of both.

Notice / notify — The company communicates with users or informs users about something related to the company or service.

Indicator guidance: No matter how carefully a platform crafts its terms of service, mistakes are inevitable in the demanding and subjective endeavor of content moderation. This is particularly true when content moderation is scaled rapidly through the use of automation. To respect users’ freedom of expression and information rights, companies should provide a robust and transparent appeals system that enables users to appeal decisions made by the company that directly influence users’ ability to exercise these rights. Companies should clearly disclose their process for appealing content moderation actions, including enabling affected users to immediately appeal that action. A robust appeals process should include oversight by a human reviewer and give affected users an opportunity to present additional information. Companies should also offer a clear timeframe for reviewing appeals and clearly disclose the circumstances in which appeals are not possible.

To receive full credit on this indicator, companies should inform users how to submit an appeal and describe what happens once the appeal enters the pipeline. This includes notifying users of their options for appeal as soon as the company takes an initial action on their content, clarifying the role of both automation and independent human moderators in the appeals process, clearly disclosing the reason for an appeals decision and the timeframes involved, and specifying circumstances in which the appeals process is not available. Companies should also clearly demonstrate they respond to appeals by publishing data on the appeals received and the outcome of those decisions.

• Company terms of service or user agreements
• Company privacy policies
• Company sustainability report