The opinion says the sharing of private residential addresses shouldn’t be allowed, even when that information is already available online

Facebook’s oversight board has published its first policy advisory opinion, recommending the social media platform changes its rules over ‘doxxing’.

The opinion, first requested by the social media giant last year, says the sharing of private residential addresses shouldn’t be allowed, even when that information is already available online.

According to the board, Facebook’s parent company Meta considered the issues of sharing private addresses and images ‘difficult’ because access to the information could be relevant to ‘journalism and civic activism’.

However, exposing this information without consent can create a risk to residents’ safety and infringe on an individual’s privacy, Meta said, requesting guidance on how that information should be shared.

Harms resulting from doxxing disproportionately affect groups such as women, children and LGBTQIA+ people, the board said. That can include ‘emotional distress, loss of employment and even physical harm or death’.

In the newly released opinion, Meta should better protect people’s addresses and remove the exception that allows the sharing of the address or images that could identify it, even when it’s considered ‘publicly available’.

There remain exemptions to the rule, particularly around publicly owned official residences.

High-ranking government officials are generally expected to tolerate lower levels of privacy, especially at their place of work, and to receive heightened protection by security personnel, the board, which includes lawyers and academics, wrote.

This recommendation proposes allowing the organisation of protests at publicly owned official residences, not the private residences of government officials, it wrote.

Private addresses can also be published if the user has allowed the sharing or given consent to its publication.

By default, users should be considered not to have given such consent, the opinion states.

Violations of the policy related to malicious action that creates risk of violence or harassment should be counted as ‘severe’, with a temporary account suspension resulting.

The board gave no guidance on how long that suspension should last for.