In a legal pluralist landscape, newly formed private bodies like the Meta Oversight Board contribute to the establishment of a novel international human rights law (IHRL) standard on hate speech. If expression is to be restricted on the ground of being hateful, the question becomes how to justify said restrictions. I argue that IHRL on freedom of expression, influenced by US constitutional law, has developed a very high threshold for proscribing harmful speech – that threshold is heavily connected to incitement to violence, discrimination or hostility being understood as imminent danger. The nascent standard that the Meta Oversight Board is advancing offers a broader understanding of harm resulting in content being taken down even in the absence of direct incitement and intent. The Board is thus often concerned with the long-term social consequences of hate speech rather than with the imminence of harm.