Download - Submission to UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of ...€¦ · 3 content on internet platforms to ensure that they do not result in increased infringement of users’ freedom of expression

SubmissiontoUNSpecialRapporteurforFreedomofExpressionandOpinionDavidKaye:ContentRegulationintheDigitalAgeRankingDigitalRightsDecember15,2017byIlanaUllman,PolicyandCommunicationsAnalyst

LauraReed,SeniorResearchAnalystandCoordinator

RebeccaMacKinnon,Director

TableofContents

ExecutiveSummary 2

AboutRankingDigitalRights 3

Introduction 4

1.Transparency 6

2.Impactassessment 12

3.GrievanceandRemedy 15

Conclusion 18

Recommendations 19

Appendix:Fulltextofrelevant2017CorporateAccountabilityIndexindicators 21

2

ExecutiveSummary

Internetplatformsaroundtheworldareunderincreasingpressurefromgovernmentsandmanyotherstakeholderstoremoveobjectionablecontent.Frommisinformationtohatespeechtoextremistcontenttoharassmentandabuse,theseplatformshavebecomegatekeepersofwhatinformationthepubliccanaccessandshare.Yet,despitetheimportantroletheyplayinmediatingpublicdiscourse,anddespiteprogressbysomecompaniesinrecentyearsindisclosingpoliciesandactionsrelatedtogovernmentrequests,theprocessofpolicingcontentoninternetplatformsremainsunacceptablyopaque.Asaresult,usersofinternetplatformscannotadequatelyunderstandhowtheironlineinformationenvironmentisbeinggovernedandshaped,bywhom,underwhatauthorities,forwhatreason.Whentransparencyaroundthepolicingofonlinespeechisinadequate,peopledonotknowwhotoholdaccountablewheninfringementsoftheirexpressionrightsoccur.Thissituationisexacerbatedbythefactthatsomeoftheworld’smostpowerfulinternetplatformsdonotconductsystematicimpactassessmentsofhowtheirtermsofservicepoliciesandenforcementmechanismsaffectusers’rights.Furthermore,grievanceandremedymechanismsforuserstoreportandobtainredresswhentheirexpressionrightsareinfringedarewoefullyinadequate.InthissubmissiontotheUNSpecialRapporteuronFreedomonExpressionandOpinionDavidKayeforhisupcomingreportoncontentregulationinthedigitalage,RankingDigitalRightsproposesthefollowingrecommendationsforcompaniesandgovernments:

1. Increasetransparencyofhowlawsgoverningonlinecontentareenforcedviainternetintermediariesandhowdecisionstorestrictcontentarebeingmadeandcarriedout.Companiesshoulddisclosepoliciesfordecisionmakingregardingcontentrestrictions,whetherattherequestofgovernments,privateactors,orcarriedoutatthecompany’sowninitiativetoenforceitstermsofservice.Theyshouldalsodisclosedataonthevolumeandnatureofcontentbeingrestrictedorremovedforthefullrangeofreasonsthatresultinrestriction.Governmentsmustencourageifnotrequiresuchtransparencyandmatchitwithtransparencyoftheirownregardingdemands–directaswellasindirect–thattheyplaceuponcompaniestorestrictcontent.

2. Broadenimpactassessmentandhumanrightsduediligenceinrelationtothe

regulationandprivatepolicingofcontent.Companiesmustconducthumanrightsimpactassessmentsthatexaminepoliciesandmechanismsforidentifyingandrestrictingcontent,includingtermsofserviceenforcementandprivateflaggingmechanisms.Theymustdisclosehowsuchassessmentsareusedidentifyandmitigateanynegativeimpactonfreedomofexpressionthatmaybecausedbythesepoliciesandmechanisms.Governmentsshouldalsoassessexistingandproposedlawsregulating

3

contentoninternetplatformstoensurethattheydonotresultinincreasedinfringementofusers’freedomofexpressionrights.

3. Establishandsupporteffectivegrievanceandremedymechanismstoaddress

infringementsofinternetusers’freedomofexpressionrights.Whencontentiserroneouslyremovedoralaworpolicyismisinterpretedinamannerthatresultsinthecensorshipofspeechthatshouldbeprotectedunderinternationalhumanrightslaw,effectivegrievanceandremedymechanismsareessentialtomitigatingharm.Adequatemechanismsarepresentlylackingontheworld’slargestandmostpowerfulinternetplatforms.Governmentsseekingincreasedpolicingofextremistandviolentcontentbyplatformsshouldnotonlysupportbutparticipateinthedevelopmentofeffectivegrievanceandremedymechanisms.

AboutRankingDigitalRights

RankingDigitalRights(RDR)isanon-profitresearchinitiativehousedatNewAmerica’sOpenTechnologyInstitute,workingwithaninternationalnetworkofpartnerstosetglobalstandardsforhowcompaniesintheinformationandcommunicationstechnology(ICT)sectorshouldrespectfreedomofexpressionandprivacy.Formoreabouttheprojectsee:https://rankingdigitalrights.orgIn2015,RDRlauncheditsinauguralCorporateAccountabilityIndexwhichevaluated16companiesbasedon31indicatorsfocusedoncorporatedisclosureofpoliciesandpracticesthataffectusers’freedomofexpressionandprivacy.InMarch2017,RankingDigitalRightsreleasedthesecondeditionofitsCorporateAccountabilityIndex,whichranked22companiesaccordingtoanexpandedlistof35indicators.ThefullIndexresults,includingthereportandrawdataforresearcherstodownloadanduse,canbefoundat:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/The2017CorporateAccountabilityIndexevaluated22internet,mobile,andtelecommunicationscompanieson35indicatorsassessingcompanies’publicdisclosuresandcommitmentsinthreecategories:governance,freedomofexpression,andprivacy.Ofthe22companiesevaluated,tenprovidesearchand/orsocialplatforms(allservicesforwhichthecompanieswereevaluated,includingnon-platformservices,arelistedbelow):

● Baidu(China)—BaiduSearch,BaiduCloud,BaiduPostBar ● Facebook(US)—Facebook,Instagram,WhatsApp,Messenger ● Mail.Ru(Russia)—VKontakte,Mail.Ruemail,Mail.RuAgent

4

● Microsoft(US)—Bing,Outlook.com,Skype ● Kakao(SouthKorea)—DaumSearch,DaumMail,KakaoTalk ● Google(US)—Search,Gmail,YouTube,Androidmobileecosystem ● Tencent(China)—QZone,QQ,WeChat ● Twitter(US)—Twitter,Periscope,Vine ● Yahoo(US)—YahooMail,Flickr,Tumblr ● Yandex(Russia)—YandexMail,YandexSearch,YandexDisk(cloudstorage)

Thefullmethodology,alongwithresearchguidance,canbefoundhere:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/2017-indicators/Thissubmissioncoversresultsfromfiveindicators(F3-F7)thatevaluatescorporatetransparencyaboutarangeofcompanyactionsthataffectusers’freedomofexpression,plustwoindicatorsthatevaluatedifferentaspectsofgovernance:G4evaluatesdisclosureaboutimpactassessments,andG6evaluatesdisclosureofgrievanceandremedymechanisms.ThethirdCorporateAccountabilityIndex,whichcoversthesame22companieswiththesamemethodology,willbereleasedinApril2018.Whileresearchforthe2018Indexisalreadyunderway,itisfarfromfinalasoftheDecember2017deadlineforthissubmission.Theinformationinthissubmissionisthereforebasedonthe2017CorporateAccountabilityIndex,publishedinMarch2017.

Introduction

Companiesaresubjecttogovernmentregulationandalsoself-regulate.Self-regulationissometimescarriedoutunilaterallybyacompany,andissometimescarriedoutinconjunctionwithotherstakeholderswithgovernmentsupportasanalternativetodirectregulation(sometimesreferredtoas“co-regulation”).1Ofthe35indicatorsusedtoevaluatecompaniesinthe2017RankingDigitalRightsCorporateAccountabilityIndex,tenaredirectlyrelevanttothequestionofhowcontentregulationaffectsfreedomofexpressiononinternetplatforms.Theresultsofthe2017Indexshowthatcompaniesdisclosethegreatestamountofinformationabouttheircommitments,policies,andprocessesinresponsetodirectgovernmentdemandstoremoveorrestrictcontentordeactivateuseraccounts.Theydisclosetheleastamountofinformationabouthowprivaterulesandmechanismsforself-andco-regulationareformulatedandcarriedout.TheresultsofRDR’s2017IndexalsoshowthatwhilemanycompaniesintheIndexconductassessmentsofhowgovernmentdemandsaffecttheirusers’rights,fewcompaniesappeartoconductimpactassessmentstoidentifyhowtheirownprivateenforcementpoliciesandpracticesaffectthefreedomofexpressionofusersaroundtheworld. 1Seep.54,http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231162e.pdf

5

RDR’sevaluationalsorevealsthatgrievanceandremedymechanismsofferedbycompaniestousersarefarfromadequate.ConcernsthatglobalinternetplatformsarecensoringspeechthatshouldbeprotectedunderinternationalhumanrightslawintheireffortstocomplywithgrowinggovernmentregulatorypressuresarereflectedinrecentdebatesandcritiquesofGermany’s“NetzDG”law,whichcameintoforceinOctober2017.2Thelawimposessignificantfinesonsocialmediaplatformsthatdonotremovehatespeechcontent,whichisillegalunderGermanlaw,within24hours.Companiesthatrepeatedlyfailtodeletethisillegalcontentinatimelymannercouldfacefinesofupto€50million.3Thefullimpactofthelawremainstobeseen,butisevenmoreimportanttounderstandinthecontextofothergovernments,suchasFranceandtheUKconsideringnewfinesforsocialmediasitesthatdonotremoveextremistcontent,andincreasingpublicpressureintheU.S.toclampdownonwhitesupremacistcontent.4Hastyandbluntapplicationofenforcementmechanismsbeingusedinresponsetosuchlawshasresultedinrestrictionofprotectedspeech.Onewell-knownexampleistherecentdeletionofSyrianoppositionvideosonYoutube.5Suchcaseshighlightwhygreatertransparency,impactassessmentandremedyarevitalasgovernmentsandcompaniesstrugglewiththequestionofhowtoprotectthepublicandusersfromhatespeechandextremistattackswithoutviolatinginternetusers’expressionrights.Ascompaniesstrengthenpoliciesandbeefuptechnicalmechanismstopolicesuchcontent,lackoftransparencyaboutthesemechanisms,oraboutthevolumeandnatureofcontentbeingremovedbythem,makesitimpossibleforstakeholderstoknowwhetherthesepoliciesandmechanismsareachievingtheirintendedpurposes.Lackofimpactassessmentmeansthatcompaniesmaynotthemselveshaveaclearunderstandingaboutthepotentialcollateraldamagetheirpoliciesandmechanismsmayinflictandhowtomitigatenegativeimpactsonusers’freedomofexpression.Lackofadequategrievanceandremedymechanismsmeansthatwhenactivistsorjournalistsorothersexercisingtheirfreeexpressionrightsaresilencedbyaplatformusingmechanismsintendedtosilencehatespeechandextremism,theydonothavereliablerecoursetoaprocessforhavingtheircasereconsideredandcontentreinstated.6

2https://edri.org/eu-action-needed-german-netzdg-draft-threatens-freedomofexpression/3 https://qz.com/1090825/germanys-new-social-media-law-analysis-facebook-twitter-youtube-to-remove-hate-speech-in-24-hours-or-face-fines/4 https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/15790034/france-uk-social-media-fine-terrorism-may-macronandhttp://thehill.com/policy/technology/347173-tech-companies-crack-down-on-hate-speech-after-charlottesville5 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/world/middleeast/syria-youtube-videos-isis.html6https://theintercept.com/2017/11/02/war-crimes-youtube-facebook-syria-rohingya/

6

1.Transparency

FindingsfromRDR’s2017Indexhighlightspecificareasofweaknessaswellassomeemergingpractices.EightindicatorsintheIndexevaluatecompanydisclosuresabouttheirpoliciesandmechanismsrelatedtogovernmentrequestsandlegalcomplianceaswellastheenforcementofprivaterules,setbythecompany,aboutwhattypesofspeechandactivityarepermissible.7The2017Indexresultsspotlightkeyareasinwhichinternetplatformscanimprovetransparencyabouttheircontentmoderationpoliciesandpractices.Wefoundthatcompaniesoveralllacktransparencyabouttheirpoliciesaffectingusers’freedomofexpression—andinparticularaboutwhattypesofcontentareprohibitedandwhattheirprocessisforenforcingtheserules.Companiesalsotendedtodisclosemoreinformationaboutrequeststheyreceivefromgovernmentsandprivatepartiestorestrictordeletecontentordeactivateaccountsthanaboutactionscompaniesthemselvestooktoenforcetermsofservice.Companiesalsolackeddisclosureofwhethertheynotifyuserswhentheyrestrictcontentoraccounts.1.1Transparencyaboutcompanyactionsthataffectfreedomofexpressionlagsbehindtransparencyaboutactionsthataffectprivacy.Transparencyreportsareonewayforcompaniestoregularlypublishdataaboutthirdpartyrequeststheyreceiveandcomplywith,forbothcontentremovalsanduserinformation,andareincreasinglyacommonpractice.8Althoughmorecompanieshavebegunissuingtransparencyreports,companiestendtoreportmoreinformationaboutrequeststheyreceivetoshareuserdata(affectingprivacy)thantheydoforactionsthataffectfreedomofexpression,suchascontentrestrictionandremovaloraccountdeactivation.Figure1onthenextpagecomparescompanyscoresontransparencyreportingaboutrequeststhattheyreceivetoshareuserinformation(darkblue)9versustransparencyreportingaboutrequeststheyreceivetorestrictorremovecontent,ordeactivateaccounts(lightblue)10.

7SeeF1-F8athttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/2017-indicators/#F8 https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/getting-internet-companies-do-right-thing/case-study-3-transparency-reporting/9 Seehttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#P1110Seehttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#F6andhttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#F7

7

1.2Companiesvarywidelyintheirdisclosuresaboutgovernmentrequestsversusdisclosuresaboutrequestsfromprivateparties,includingrequestsrelatedtotermsofserviceviolations.Allplatformcompanieshaveroomtoimprovetheirtransparencyaboutrequestsaffectingfreedomofexpression,andshouldbejustastransparentaboutgovernmentrequeststoremovecontentastheyarewithprivateones(andviceversa).Currently,usersareleftwithanincompletepictureofthescopeandpotentialimpactthatgovernmentandprivaterequestsmayhaveontheirspeech.NotethatRDRdefines“governmentrequests”forcontentremovalsasrequestsoriginatingfromgovernmentministriesoragencies,lawenforcement,orcourtordersincriminalandcivilcases.RDRdefines“privaterequests”asthosemadebyanypersonorentitynotactingunderdirectgovernmentalorcourtauthority.Examplesofprivaterequestsincluderequestsfromaself-regulatorybodysuchastheUK’sInternetWatchFoundation,oranotice-and-takedownsystem,suchastheU.S.DigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct.

8

Figure2belowcomparescompanyscoresondatadisclosedaboutgovernmentrequests(F6)11withtheirscoresondatadisclosedaboutprivaterequests(F7).12

Disclosureaboutprivaterequestsforcontentrestrictionisalsoimportantformonitoringthefullimpactofgovernmentrequestsforcontentrestriction,giventhatgovernmentsoften

11Seehttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#F612Seehttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#F7

9

delegatetake-downrequestsandthereportingofterms-of-serviceviolationstoprivateparties.Forexample,therehavebeendocumentedcasesofcopyrightenforcementmechanismsbeingabusedbygovernments,suchasEcuadorPresidentRafaelCorrea,whousedmillionsofdollarsofpublicfundstohireaforeigncompanytohelpdeleteinformationcriticalofhimfromsitesincludingYouTube,Facebook,Vimeo,andDailymotion.13OfparticularnoteisFacebook’sminimaldisclosureofdatarelatedtoanytypeofprivaterequestsforcontentrestriction(F7).Itsscoreonthisindicator,6%outofapossible100%,reflectedtheleastamountofdisclosureincomparisonwithitspeers,exceptforthreecompaniesheadquarteredinmuchmorerepressivespeechenvironments(ChinaandRussia).Figure3belowcomparesFacebook’srelativelystrongperformanceindisclosingdataaboutgovernmentrequestsforuserdata,incontrasttoitspoorperformanceindisclosingcompanyactionsthataffectusers’freedomofexpression.

Allplatformcompanieshaveroomtoimprovetheirtransparencyaboutrequeststheyreceiveandhowthoserequestsarehandled.Theyshouldbejustastransparentaboutgovernmentrequeststoremovecontentastheyarewithprivateones(andviceversa).Currently,usersareleftwithanincompletepictureofthescopeandpotentialimpactthatgovernmentandprivate

13 https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/ecuadors-president-used-millions-of-dollars-of-public-funds

10

requeststoremovecontentmayhaveontheirspeech,andmorebroadlyontheglobalflowofinformationonline.1.3Companiesdisclosemoreinformationaboutprocessesthandataaboutthevolumeandnatureofrestrictionsandremovals.Therecontinuestobeagapinwhatcompaniesdiscloseabouttheirroleincensoringonlinecontent,withcompaniesdisclosingmoreabouttheirprocessesforrespondingtogovernmentandprivaterequeststorestrictcontentandaccountsthantheydoaboutthenumberofrequeststheyreceiveandwithwhichtheycomply.Thismakesitunclearhowtheseprocessesareappliedinpractice,anddifficulttodeterminethescopeandpotentialimpactofthesecontentrestrictionsonfreedomofexpression.Inlightoftherecentincreaseingovernmentpressuretoremoveextremist,hatespeech,andotherobjectionablecategoriesofcontent,itisparticularlyimportantthatcompaniespublishdataonthecontentrestrictionrequeststheyreceiveandcomplywith,sothatadvocatesandthepubliccandetermineifcontentremovalrequestsareontherise,andwhetherornotthecompanyispushingbackagainstthem.Inaddition,whengovernmentsboastofincreasedcooperationwithplatformcompanies,thisdatamayalsooffersomeinsighttohelpdeterminewhethertheseclaimshavemerit,oraremerelymorerhetoric.Forexample,inApril2017,theVietnamesegovernmentreportedithadreachedanagreementwithFacebookforittocensorcontentthatviolateslocallawsorpostswith“fakecontent”aboutgovernmentofficials.14VietnameseofficialsclaimedthatFacebookhadagreedtosetupadirectchannelofcommunicationwiththegovernmenttofacilitatetheserequests,althoughFacebookstatedthatitsprocessforreceivingandrespondingtogovernmentrequestsisconsistentacrossjurisdictions.15Notably,initsGovernmentRequestsReport,Facebookdisclosesonlythenumberofpiecesofcontentitrestrictedduetogovernmentrequests,percountry.16Itdoesnotdisclosethenumberofrequestsitreceived,makingitimpossibletotelltowhatdegreethecompanyiscomplyingwith,orperhapspushingbackagainst,governmentrequestsitreceivestocensorcontentonitsplatform.Thisgapbetweendisclosureofcontentpoliciesandhowtheyareenforcedinpracticeisparticularlynoticeableinthecaseoftermsofserviceenforcement,forwhichthedifferenceincompanyperformanceamongthetwoindicatorsisparticularlypronounced. 14 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-vietnam/vietnam-says-facebook-commits-to-preventing-offensive-content-idUSKBN17T0A015 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-vietnam/vietnam-says-facebook-commits-to-preventing-offensive-content-idUSKBN17T0A016 https://govtrequests.facebook.com/

11

AsFigure4belowillustrates,whileallcompaniesdiscloseinformationaboutprocesses,onlythreecompanieswerefoundtohavedisclosedanydataaboutthevolumeandnatureofcontenttheyremovedattheirowninitiativewhenenforcingtheirtermsofservice:

Ofthethreecompanies—Google,Microsoft,andTwitter—thatdisclosedanydataaboutcontenttheyrestrictedasaresultofenforcingtheirtermsofservice,17disclosurewaslimitedtospecificareas:● InaFebruary2016blogpost,Twitterdisclosedthat"Sincethemiddleof2015alone,

we’vesuspendedover125,000accountsforthreateningorpromotingterroristacts,"18andinafollow-uppostsixmonthslateritannouncedthat"wehavesuspendedanadditional235,000accounts."19InMarch2017(afterthecutoffdateforinformationevaluatedinthe2017Index)Twitterbeganincludingtermsofservice-relatedtakedownsinitstransparencyreportsforrequeststhatoriginatedfromgovernments

17 Seehttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#F418 https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2016/combating-violent-extremism.html19 https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2016/an-update-on-our-efforts-to-combat-violent-extremism.html

12

andconcernedextremistcontent.InSeptember2017,Twitterexpandedthiscategorytoincludethreeadditionaltermsofserviceviolationcategories,suchasabusivebehavior,copyright,andtrademark.However,thisdataislimitedtorequeststhatoriginatedfromgovernmentsanddoesnotincluderequestsfromnon-governmentalparties.AsTwitterhasrecentlyannouncedupcomingchangestoitsrules,20specificallythoserelatingtoabuse,itisimportantthatitcontinuetopublishthisdata,andbroadenthescopetoincludenon-governmentrequests,tohelpusersandadvocatesevaluatethenewrules’impact.

● Microsoftpublishedtermsofserviceenforcementdatafor"revengeporn"content(this

contentisillegalinsomejurisdictionsbutnotall),andthecompanyspecificallystatesthattheyremovereportedlinkstophotosandvideosfromsearchresultsonBing"...whenwearenotifiedbyanidentifiablevictim"(whichwouldindicatethatthesearenon-governmentrequests).However,itdidnotpublishdatarelatingtoothertypesofcontentoractivitiesinthecompany'stermsofservice.

● InaSeptember2016blogpost,21YouTubedisclosedthatithadremoved92million

videosforviolatingitstermsofserviceandthat1%ofthevideosremovedwereforhatespeechandterroristcontent.However,itdidnotprovideexactnumbers,andthisdataisnotreportedinanongoingmanner.

Thoughdisclosureonthisindicatorisincrediblylow,itstillmarksanimprovementcomparedtothe2015Index,22inwhichnocompanyevaluateddisclosedanydataaboutcontentthatwasrestrictedfromenforcingtheirtermsofservice.

2.Impactassessment

Sinceitsinceptionin2015,theRDRCorporateAccountabilityIndexhasconsistentlyfoundthatwhilesomeoftheworld’smostpowerfulinternetplatformspubliclydisclosethattheycarryoutimpactassessmentsonhowcompliancewithgovernmentlawsandpoliciesmayaffectthefreedomofexpressionrightsofusers,companiesdiscloselittleaboutassessingtheriskstofreedomofexpressionposedbytheenforcementoftheirownpolicies.Significantchallengestofreedomofexpressionandprivacycanarisewhenacompanydecidestointroduceanewfeature,launchanewservice,orenteranewmarket.Oneindicationthata 20 https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2017/safetycalendar.html21 https://youtube.googleblog.com/2016/09/why-flagging-matters.html22 https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2015/

13

companyisconsideringthepotentialhumanrightsimplicationsofitspoliciesandservicesiswhetheritdisclosesthatitconductshumanrightsimpactassessments(HRIAs).TheUNGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights,whicharticulatebusinesses’responsibilitytorespecthumanrights,specificallyspellsoutcompanies’obligationtoassessactualandpotentialhumanrightsimpactsandtoactuponthefindings.23Humanrightsimpactassessmentsprovidecompanieswithameanstoidentifyareasofconcerninordertomitigateorpreventpotentialinfringementsonhumanrights,ortoprovideremedyforviolationsthatmayhavealreadyoccurred.24Manyoftheissuesattheintersectionofhumanrightsandtechnologymakingheadlinestodaycanbetracedbacktoacompany’sfailuretoanticipatethenegativeimplicationsofitsbusinessdecisions.Forexample,aProPublicainvestigationofFacebook’sinternalcontentmoderationpoliciesrevealedconfusingrulesthatprotectedcategoriessuchas“whitemen”butnot“blackchildren.”Anotherrule,whichthecompanysaidwasnolongerineffect,prohibitedcontentsupporting“violencetoresistoccupationofaninternationallyrecognizedstate.”25ProPublicareportedseveralinstancesofjournalistsandactivistsinPalestine,Kashmir,Crimea,andWesternSahara,whohadtheircontentoraccountsrestrictedasaresultofthispolicy.Suchproblemsraisequestionsaboutwhetherthecompanycarriedoutanysortofimpactassessmentbeforeenactingtheserulesandrelatedenforcementprocesses.Indeed,Facebook’sscoreonIndexindicatorG4,whichexaminescompanydisclosuresonimpactassessment,showsnodisclosureaboutimpactassessmentontermsofservicepolicyformulationorenforcement.26Whencraftingrulesaboutwhattypesofspeechisforbiddenfromtheirplatformsandinwhatcontext,companiesshouldconsultwithexternalstakeholdersandcarefullyexamineiftheserulesprotectthosemostlikelytobediscriminatedagainst,anddeterminetheimpactonfreedomofexpressionoftheirenforcement.Itisimportantforcompaniestocarryouthumanrightsimpactassessmentsonaregularbasisandcontinuetoassessthepotentialimpactoftheirproductsandservicesaftertheinitialrollout,andtoconductmeaningfuloutreachtodifferentstakeholdergroupsinordertolearnhowthesetechnologiesaresurfacingvaryingchallengesforarangeofusergroups.Asnotedinthecallforsubmissions,thestandardsandprocessesthataplatformcompanyusestoenforcesitsownrules—suchasthosearticulatedin

23 Principle17,UNGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights,p.17:http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.24 UNGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights,p.18:http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.25 https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech-censorship-internal-documents-algorithms 26 Seehttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#G4;https://rankingdigitalrights.org/2017-indicators/#G4andhttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/companies/facebook/

14

termsofserviceorcommunityguidelinespolicies—havesignificantimplicationsforhumanrights.Recognizingthisrisk,companiesshouldpaycloseattentiontotheimplicationsoftheirtermsofserviceenforcementpolicieswhenconductingHRIAs.Figure5belowillustratestheextenttowhichcompaniesconductthoroughduediligenceacrossthefullrangeofriskstousers’freedomofexpression:

Sevenofthetenplatformcompaniesevaluatedinthe2017Indexdisclosedatleastsomeinformationaboutwhethertheycarryoutregular,comprehensive,andcredibleduediligence,forexample,intheshapeofhumanrightsimpactassessments(HRIA),toexaminehowallaspectsoftheirbusinessaffectfreedomofexpressionandprivacyandtomitigateanyrisksposedbythoseimpacts.27Fourfullydisclosedthataspartoftheirdecision-making,theyconsiderhowlawsaffectfreedomofexpressioninjurisdictionswheretheyoperate.Fivecompaniesreceivedcreditforatleastsomeinformationaboutassessingfreedomofexpressionandprivacyrisksassociatedwithexistingproductsandservices,andsixdisclosedatleastsomeinformationaboutassessingfreedomofexpressionandprivacyrisksassociatedwithanewactivity.However,ofthetenplatformcompanies,onlytwo—YahooandMicrosoft—disclosedanyinformationaboutassessingandmitigatingthefreedomofexpressionandprivacyrisksassociatedwiththeprocessesandmechanismsusedtoenforcetheirtermsofservice. 27https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#G4

15

● Yahoo(nowpartofanewcompany,Oath,ownedbyVerizon),receivedfullcreditfor

disclosingthatoneofthecircumstancestriggeringanHRIAisthe“reviewofinternalprocessesormechanismstoenforcepolicies,suchasourtermsofservice,thatmayimpactusers’rightstoprivacyorfreeexpression."28

● Microsoftreceivedpartialcreditfordisclosureabouteffortsthecompanyhastakento

addressthefreedomofexpressionimpactsofhowitenforcesitstermsofusewithregardtoterroristcontentreports.Initsdisclosure,Microsoftalsostatesthatits“decisionsandactionsintheenforcementofthetermsofuseforourservicesdonotchangebasedonwhetherthereferralismadebyagovernmentoranyothernon-governmententityorperson."29However,thisisonlyoneexampleandisnotaclearcommitmentthatthiskindofassessmentoccursforallitsproductsandservicesonanongoingbasis.

Withtheexceptionsnotedabove,socialandsearchplatformcompaniesarenotdisclosingiftheyconductriskassessmentsofthefreedomofexpressionrisksassociatedwithenforcingtheirtermsofservice.Muchofcompanydisclosuretendstofocusontheirprocessesforrespondingtogovernmentrequeststocensorcontent—companiesarefarlesstransparentwhenitcomestotheimpactthattheirownrules,andprivatepartyrequeststocensorcontent,canhaveonfreedomofexpression.Ifcompaniesarealreadyconductingsuchassessmentsintheseareas,theyshouldbettercommunicatethemtotheirusers.Internetplatformsmustbemakinginformeddecisionsabouttheircontentpolicies—unlesstheyconsultwithaffectedstakeholdersandthoroughlyconsiderandtakeeffortstomitigatehumanrightsharms,thesepoliciesmayhavesignificantnegativeconsequences,whichinmanycasescouldhaveotherwisebeenanticipated.

3.GrievanceandRemedy

Companiesshouldprovidemeaningfulremedywhentheybecomeawareofaninstanceinwhichtheirbusinessoperationsmayhaveresultedintheinfringementofusers’rights,yetfewcompaniesdisclosemuchinformationabouttheirremedymechanisms,iftheyhavethematall.TheUNGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRightsstatethatwhenacompanyidentifiesasituationinwhichithascausedorcontributedtoadverseimpactsonhumanrights,”[...]itsresponsibilitytorespecthumanrightsrequiresactiveengagementinremediation,byitselforin 28 https://yahoobhrp.tumblr.com/post/75507678786/human-rights-impact-assessments-yahoo-has29 MicrosoftSalientHumanRightsIssueReporthttp://download.microsoft.com/download/0/0/6/00604579-134B-4D0E-97C3-D525DFB7890A/Microsoft_Salient_Human_Rights_Issues_Report-FY17.pdf

16

cooperationwithotheractors.”30Forinternetplatforms,remedymechanismsmayincludedisclosingaclearprocessbywhichuserscanchallengetermsofserviceenforcementactionsthecompanyhastakenagainstthemandappealforreinstatementoftheircontentoraccount.Companiesshouldalsomakesurethattheirremedymechanismsarebroadenoughtocoverarangeofcomplaintsthatusersmaysubmit.Offlinepowerstructuresareoftenreplicatedonline,andinmaintainingremedymechanisms,platformsshouldthereforeseektoensurethatmarginalizedvoicesareheard.However,thisisnotcurrentlythecase.Forexample,severalRohingyaactivistshavereportedthattheirFacebookaccountsand/orcontenthavebeenrepeatedlycensored.31Thecontentatissuerangedfromnewsaboutmilitaryatrocities,newsaboutmilitaryactioninRakhinestate,andevenapoemaboutrefugeesfleeingmilitaryviolence.“Ihavedeactivatedmyaccountinfrustration,”oneindividualtoldtheDailyBeast.TheseactivistsrelyonplatformslikeFacebooktohelpthemspreadawarenessandnewsofaconflictoftenneglectedbymainstreammedia,butFacebook’srepeateddeletingoftheircontentandthreatstoremovetheiraccountssilencesvoicesspeakingoutaboutanddocumentingatrocities.Incasessuchasthis,thelackofcleargrievanceandremedymechanismcanexacerbatetheoriginalfreedomofexpressionconcern,escalatingthesituationfromaninstanceofcensorshiptoexilefromtheplatformaltogether(whetherself-imposedorasaresultofthecompanydeactivatingtheuser’saccount).Facebookdoesallowuserstoappealsometypesofdecisionsbutnotall(userscannotappealdecisionstoremovalindividualposts,forexample),32anddescriptionsoftheappealsprocessrevealthatitisnotalwaysstraightforwardoraddressedtotheuser’sactualcomplaint.33Atpresent,grievanceandremedymechanismscompaniesofferaretotallyinadequatetomatchtheenormousinfluencetheseplatformswieldoverfreedomofexpression.Figure6onthenextpageillustratestheperformanceoftheteninternetplatformsevaluatedonindicatorG6,whichexaminescompanydisclosuresabouttheirgrievanceandremedymechanisms.

30 UNGuidingPrinciples,p.24:http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf31https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-rohingya-activists-say-facebook-silences-them32 https://onlinecensorship.org/resources/how-to-appeal33 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/facebook-has-clarified-its-policies-how-about-fixing-them

17

Aspressurefromgovernmentsaroundtheworldtopolicecontentcontinuestorise,havingrobustgrievanceandremedymechanismsisessentialtomitigatingharmstofreedomofexpressionandcorrectingerrors.Socialandsearchplatformsatpresentarenotputtingsufficienteffortintogrievanceandremedy,asthe2017Indexdatashows.Notably:● Ofthetenplatformcompaniesevaluated,Kakaohadthehighestscore,with58%.While

thisdisclosurewaslargelyduetorequirementsunderSouthKoreanlaw,Kakaowentbeyondthelegalrequirementforcompliancebyalsoprovidinguserswithanappealsmechanismwhencontentisremovedinresponsetodefamationclaims.Thisthereforeisnotonlyanexampleofregulationplayingapositiverole,butalsoofacompanygoingaboveandbeyondtheminimumlegalrequirement.

● Onlytwoplatformcompanies—KakaoandMail.Ru—fullydisclosedacrossallservices

thattheirgrievanceandremedymechanismsincludecomplaintsrelatedtofreedomofexpression.YouTubealsoreceivedfullcreditonthiselement,thoughGoogleSearchreceivedpartialcredit(G6,Element2,seeappendix).

18

● Twitterwastheonlyplatformcompanytoreceiveanycreditfordisclosingthenumberofcomplaintsitreceivesrelatedtofreedomofexpression.However,itreceivedpartialcredit,asthecopyrightnoticessectionofitsTransparencyReportonlyincludesnumbersofDMCAtakedownsandnototherformsofcomplaintsinvolvingfreedomofexpression.34

Havingadequateremedymechanismsinplacetoaddressfreedomofexpressionharmsisespeciallyimportantinlightofincreasinggovernmentpressureforplatformstoregulateextremistcontent.Thishascomeintheformofnewlaws,suchasGermany’sNetzDGlaw,mentionedearlierinthissubmission,aswellasfromgovernmentspubliclycallingonplatformstostepupeffortstoremoveextremistcontent.Companyattemptstoensurecomplianceappearstobecausingthemtoerronthesideofcensorship—theconsequencesofwhichcanbesevereasdemonstratedbypreviouslycitedexamplessuchasthesilencingofRohingyavoicesinMyanmarorSyrianoppositionactivists.Remedymechanismscanmitigatetheharm—forexample,sothatthousandsofvideosdepictingviolenceinSyriacanberestoredandpreservedforpotentialuseinfuturewarcrimeprosecutions.35Effectivegrievancereportingmechanismsmayalsohelptoinformgovernmentsandcompaniesabouttheconsequencesofcertaintypesofpolicingmechanisms,inadditiontohelpingcompaniesandpolicymakersdevelopalternativepoliciesandpracticesthatresultinlesscollateralcensorship.

Conclusion

Althoughtheinformationthatinternetplatformscurrentlydiscloseshedssomelightonthestateofcontentregulationinthedigitalage,overall,usersandadvocatesarestillleftinthedark.Thelackofcompanytransparencyisespeciallyconcerninginapoliticalcontextwheregovernmentsandotherstakeholdersconcernedabouthatespeech,extremism,andothermaliciousbehavioronlinearepushingforgreatercontentrestrictions.Thepastyearhasseenawidevarietyofeffortstopushcompaniestomorevigorouslypolicetheirplatforms,fromproposalsforautomatedsystemstodetectandfiltercopyright,36andremoveextremistcontent37tocombatinghateandabuse.38Theseproposalshavedifferentscopesandaims,butuntilcompaniesaremoretransparentabouttheirownpolicies,andhowtheyrespondtothirdpartyrequests,itisunclearwhatfurtherimpactthenewlyproposedmeasuresmayhaveonusers’freedomofexpressionrights.Itisdifficulttogaugethepotentialimpacttofreedomof 34 https://transparency.twitter.com/copyright-notices/2015/jul-dec35 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-4102323436 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/digital-rights-groups-demand-deletion-unlawful-filtering-mandate-proposed-eu37 https://cdt.org/blog/pressuring-platforms-to-censor-content-is-wrong-approach-to-combatting-terrorism/38 https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/14/16410348/twitter-boycott-new-rules-enforcement-aggressive-stance-harassment-jack-dorsey

19

expressionwhenlittledataaboutcontentrestrictionsisavailable,whencompaniesthemselvesdonotappeartobeconductingcomprehensiveimpactassessments,andwhenuserswhosevoicesaresilenceddonothaveadequategrievanceandremedymechanismsthroughwhichtolodgecomplaintsandrestoretheircontent.Meanwhile,freedomofexpressionadvocateswarnthatthetrendtowardsprivatizingcensorship-leavingtherule-makingandenforcementtocompanieswithminimalgovernmentorcourtinvolvement-raisessignificantfreedomofexpressionrisks,andthattheseeffortscomewithsignificantnegativeconsequences.39RDRagreeswiththosewhoarguethatlegislationthatincreasesintermediaryliabilitywillnotadvancefreedomofexpressionbutratherwouldcreateadditionalrisksforviolatingit.Ontheotherhand,therehasbeenrelativelylittlediscussionamongstakeholdersaboutlawsorincentivesthatwouldincreasetransparencyabouthowexpressionisgovernedonlinebycompaniesandgovernments.Measuresrequiringorincentivizinginternetplatformstoprovidegreatertransparencytousersandthepublic,toconductriskassessmentsonpotentialthreatstheirservicesandpoliciesmayhavetofreedomofexpression,andofferingrobustremedymechanisms,couldpotentiallyimproveaccountabilityamongallactorsandwouldalsohelptoinformbettersolutionstotherealproblemofmaliciouscontentandbehavioronline.Corporatetransparency,however,mustbematchedbycommitmentfromgovernmentstodisclosecomprehensivedataaboutthevolumeandnatureofrequestsbeingmadetocompanies.Governmentsshouldsimilarlyconducthumanrightsimpactassessmentstoidentifypotentialadverseimpactsthatmaybecausedbytheenforcementoflawstargetingcontentoninternetplatforms.Finally,governmentsshouldensurethateffectivelegalandothertypesofremediesareavailabletothosewhosefreedomofexpressionrightsareinfringedwhencompaniesattempttocomplywithlawsandotherrequirementstopolicecontent.

39 https://cdt.org/blog/pressuring-platforms-to-censor-content-is-wrong-approach-to-combatting-terrorism/

20

Recommendations

Forcompanies:

● Improvetransparencyandaccountabilityaboutalltypesofthird-partyrequeststorestrictcontentoruseraccounts—governmentrequestsaswellasrequestsbyprivateindividualsandorganizations.Tothemaximumextentpossibleunderthelaw,companiesshouldpublishcomprehensiveinformation(includingtransparencyreports)relatedtothefollowingtypesofthird-partyrequests:

○ Processforrespondingtoalltypesofthird-partyrequeststorestrictcontent,

access,orservice;

○ Dataaboutgovernmentrequeststorestrictcontent,access,orservice;

○ Dataaboutprivaterequestsforcontentrestriction.

● Publishdataonaregularbasisaboutthevolumeandnatureofcontentremovalsandaccountrestrictionsthatthecompanymakestoenforceitstermsofservice.

● Conductregularassessmentstodeterminetheimpactofthecompany'sproducts,

services,andbusinessoperationsonusers'freedomofexpressionandprivacy.Companiesshouldcarryouthumanrightsimpactassessmentsonaregularbasisandcontinuetoassessthepotentialimpactoftheirproductsandservicesaftertheinitialrollout.CompaniesshouldalsopaycloseattentiontotheimplicationsoftheirtermsofserviceenforcementpolicieswhenconductingHRIAs.

● Conductmeaningfuloutreachtodifferentstakeholdergroupsinordertolearnhow

theirservicesmaybenegativelyimpactingusersindifferentcommunities,andidentifywaystomitigatetheseharms.

● Establisheffectivegrievanceandremedymechanisms,andclearlyindicatethatthese

mechanismscanbeusedtoraiseconcernsrelatedtopotentialoractualviolationsoffreedomofexpressionandprivacy.

21

Forgovernments:

● Insteadofpassinglawsthatwouldincreaseintermediaryliabilityoninternetplatforms,governmentsshouldperhapsconsiderregulationrequiringgreatertransparencyfrominternetplatforms.Thiswouldnotonlyhelptoadvancefreedomofexpressionontheseplatforms,butcouldalsohelptoaddressongoingconcernsoftheiruseinpotentialmisinformationandmanipulationofpublicopinion.40

● Considerthepotentialforregulationrequiringcompaniestoconductriskassessments

onpotentialthreatstheirservicesandpoliciesmayhavetofreedomofexpression,andofferrobustremedymechanisms.

● Ensurethatlawsandregulationsallowcompaniestobetransparentandaccountable

withusersabouthowtheyreceiveandhandlegovernmentrequeststorestrictcontent.

● Conducthumanrightsimpactassessmentsonallproposedandexistinglawsrelatedtotheregulationofonlineplatformstoidentifyandmitigatepotentialviolationsofusers’rightstofreedomofexpression.

● Workwithcompaniestoestablisheffectivelegalandothertypesofgrievanceand

remedymechanismsforpeoplewhoserighttofreedomofexpressionhasbeeninfringedinthecourseofpolicingplatformsformaliciouscontent.

40 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/business/facebook-misinformation-abroad.html

22

Appendix:Fulltextofrelevant2017CorporateAccountabilityIndexindicatorsThefullmethodology,includingdefinitionsandresearchguidance,usedforthe2017Indexcanbedownloadedat:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2017Indexmethodology.pdfRawresearchdataforallindicators,alongwiththefull2017Indexreportcanbedownloadedat:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/download/Fulltextofindicatorsdiscussedinthissubmissionisduplicatedbelow,pluslinkstoindicatorresearchguidanceanddefinitionsaswellaslinkstotherelevant2017Indexresultsforeachindicator.IndicatorsF3-F7assesstransparencyaboutcompanyactionsaffectingfreedomofexpression.IndicatorG4assessesdisclosureofimpactassessment.IndicatorG6assessesdisclosureofgrievanceandremedymechanisms.F3.Processfortermsofserviceenforcement https://rankingdigitalrights.org/2017-indicators/#F3Thecompanyshouldclearlydisclosethecircumstancesunderwhichitmayrestrictcontentoruseraccounts.Results:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#F3 Elements:

1. Doesthecompanyclearlydisclosewhattypesofcontentoractivitiesitdoesnotpermit?

2. Doesthecompanyclearlydisclosewhyitmayrestrictauser’saccount?

3. Doesthecompanyclearlydiscloseinformationabouttheprocessesitusestoidentifycontentoraccountsthatviolatethecompany’srules?

4. Doesthecompanyclearlydisclosewhetheranygovernmentauthoritiesreceivepriority

considerationwhenflaggingcontenttoberestrictedforviolatingthecompany’srules?

5. Doesthecompanyclearlydisclosewhetheranyprivateentitiesreceivepriorityconsiderationwhenflaggingcontenttoberestrictedforviolatingthecompany’srules?

6. Doesthecompanyclearlydiscloseitsprocessforenforcingitsrules?

7. Doesthecompanyprovideclearexamplestohelptheuserunderstandwhattherulesareand

howtheyareenforced?

23

F4.Dataabouttermsofserviceenforcement https://rankingdigitalrights.org/2017-indicators/#F4Thecompanyshouldclearlydiscloseandregularlypublishdataaboutthevolumeandnatureofactionstakentorestrictcontentoraccountsthatviolatethecompany’srules.Results:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#F4 Elements:

1. Doesthecompanyclearlydisclosedataaboutthevolumeandnatureofcontentandaccountsrestrictedforviolatingthecompany’srules?

2. Doesthecompanypublishthisdataatleastonceayear?

Canthedatapublishedbythecompanybeexportedasastructureddatafile?

F5.Processforrespondingtothird-partyrequestsforcontentoraccountrestriction https://rankingdigitalrights.org/2017-indicators/#F5Thecompanyshouldclearlydiscloseitsprocessforrespondingtogovernmentrequests(includingjudicialorders)andprivaterequeststoremove,filter,orrestrictcontentoraccounts.Results:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#F5 Elements:

1. Doesthecompanyclearlydiscloseitsprocessforrespondingtonon-judicialgovernmentrequests?

2. Doesthecompanyclearlydiscloseitsprocessforrespondingtocourtorders?

3. Doesthecompanyclearlydiscloseitsprocessforrespondingtogovernmentrequestsfrom

foreignjurisdictions?

4. Doesthecompanyclearlydiscloseitsprocessforrespondingtoprivaterequests?

5. Dothecompany’sexplanationsclearlydisclosethelegalbasisunderwhichitmaycomplywithgovernmentrequests?

6. Dothecompany’sexplanationsclearlydisclosethebasisunderwhichitmaycomplywith

privaterequests?

24

7. Doesthecompanyclearlydisclosethatitcarriesoutduediligenceongovernmentrequestsbeforedecidinghowtorespond?

8. Doesthecompanyclearlydisclosethatitcarriesoutduediligenceonprivaterequestsbefore

decidinghowtorespond?

9. Doesthecompanycommittopushbackoninappropriateoroverbroadrequestsmadebygovernments?

10. Doesthecompanycommittopushbackoninappropriateoroverbroadprivaterequests?

11. Doesthecompanyprovideclearguidanceorexamplesofimplementationofitsprocessof

respondingtogovernmentrequests?

12. Doesthecompanyprovideclearguidanceorexamplesofimplementationofitsprocessofrespondingtoprivaterequests?

F6.Dataaboutgovernmentrequestsforcontentoraccountrestriction https://rankingdigitalrights.org/2017-indicators/#F6Thecompanyshouldregularlypublishdataaboutgovernmentrequests(includingjudicialorders)toremove,filter,orrestrictcontentoraccounts.Results:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#F6

Elements:

1. Doesthecompanybreakoutthenumberofrequestsitreceivesbycountry?

2. Doesthecompanylistthenumberofaccountsaffected?

3. DoesthecompanylistthenumberofpiecesofcontentorURLsaffected?

4. Doesthecompanylistthetypesofsubjectmatterassociatedwiththerequestsitreceives?

5. Doesthecompanylistthenumberofrequeststhatcomefromdifferentlegalauthorities?

6. Doesthecompanylistthenumberofrequestswithwhichitcomplied?

7. Doesthecompanypublishtheoriginalrequestsordisclosethatitprovidescopiestoapublicthird-partyarchive?

8. Doesthecompanyreportsthisdataatleastonceayear?

25

9. Canthedatabeexportedasastructureddatafile?

F7.Dataaboutprivaterequestsforcontentoraccountrestrictionhttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/2017-indicators/#F7Thecompanyshouldregularlypublishdataaboutprivaterequeststoremove,filter,orrestrictaccesstocontentoraccounts.Results:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#F7 Elements:

1. Doesthecompanybreakoutthenumberofrequestsitreceivesbycountry?

2. Doesthecompanylistthenumberofaccountsaffected?

3. DoesthecompanylistthenumberofpiecesofcontentorURLsaffected?

4. Doesthecompanylistthereasonsforremovalassociatedwiththerequestsitreceives?

5. Doesthecompanydescribethetypesofpartiesfromwhichitreceivesrequests?

6. Doesthecompanylistthenumberofrequestsitcompliedwith?

7. Doesthecompanypublishtheoriginalrequestsordisclosethatitprovidescopiestoapublicthird-partyarchive?

8. Doesthecompanyreportthisdataatleastonceayear?

9. Canthedatabeexportedasastructureddatafile?

10. Doesthecompanyclearlydisclosethatitsreportingcoversalltypesofprivaterequeststhatit

receives? G4.Impactassessmenthttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/2017-indicators/#G4

26

Thecompanyshouldconductregular,comprehensive,andcredibleduediligence,suchashumanrightsimpactassessments,toidentifyhowallaspectsofitsbusinessaffectfreedomofexpressionandprivacyandtomitigateanyrisksposedbythoseimpacts.Results:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#G4

Elements:

1. Aspartofitsdecision-making,doesthecompanyconsiderhowlawsaffectfreedomofexpressionandprivacyinjurisdictionswhereitoperates?

2. Doesthecompanyregularlyassessfreedomofexpressionandprivacyrisksassociatedwith

existingproductsandservices?

3. Doesthecompanyassessfreedomofexpressionandprivacyrisksassociatedwithanewactivity,includingthelaunchand/oracquisitionofnewproducts,services,orcompaniesorentryintonewmarkets?

4. Doesthecompanyassessfreedomofexpressionandprivacyrisksassociatedwiththeprocesses

andmechanismsusedtoenforceitstermsofservice?

5. Doesthecompanyconductadditionalevaluationwhereverthecompany’sriskassessmentsidentifyconcerns?

6. Doseniorexecutivesand/ormembersofthecompany’sboardofdirectorsreviewandconsider

theresultsofassessmentsandduediligenceintheirdecision-making?

7. Doesthecompanyconductassessmentsonaregularschedule?

8. Arethecompany’sassessmentsassuredbyanexternalthirdparty?

9. Istheexternalthirdpartythatassurestheassessmentaccreditedtoarelevantandreputablehumanrightsstandardbyacredibleorganization?

G6.Remedyhttps://rankingdigitalrights.org/2017-indicators/#G6

27

Thecompanyshouldhavegrievanceandremedymechanismstoaddressusers’freedomofexpressionandprivacyconcerns.Results:https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/indicators/#G6

Elements:

1. Doesthecompanyclearlydiscloseitsprocessesforreceivingcomplaints?

2. Doesthecompanyclearlydisclosethatitsprocessincludescomplaintsrelatedtofreedomofexpressionandprivacy?

3. Doesthecompanyclearlydiscloseitsprocessforrespondingtocomplaints?

4. Doesthecompanyreportonthenumberofcomplaintsreceivedrelatedtofreedomof

expressionandprivacy?

5. Doesthecompanyprovideclearevidencethatitisrespondingtocomplaints?