Genderwashing in Digital Platforms’ Self-Regulation: A Case Study of Decisions by the Meta Oversight Board

Abstract

Online gender‑based violence curbs women’s rights while generating profit for digital platforms due to the high engagement generated by such content. This dynamic exemplifies the gender-related legal issues raised by digital platform business models. These harmful practices are scrutinised by legal and social science scholarship and addressed within a broad regulatory discourse encompassing both soft and hard law measures and social media self-regulating initiatives. The latter is especially representative of the development of terms and conditions and the creation of “quasi-judicial” boards, which operate as regulatory intermediaries. One such body is Meta’s Oversight Board—an independent board that reviews Meta’s decisions about Facebook, Instagram, and Threads content. This research analyses two gender-related binding decisions by the Board to assess: (i) the legal values, norms, and principles applied in gender-sensitive rulings and (ii) whether these decisions led to effective protection, remediation, and infrastructural changes within Meta’s services. The article argues that Meta’s responses remain largely superficial, using human rights discourse to legitimise actions without addressing the core issue—its infrastructure. These measures often serve as symbolic gestures rather than substantive reforms and may amount to forms of genderwashing, ultimately exacerbating rather than mitigating harms experienced by women, girls, and LGBTQIA+ users online.