A/76/380 students in Australia, 129 and academics in 17 States across the Middle East and North Africa report self-censoring, including in their publications, teaching and public statements (or involvement in pro-democracy groups, in the case of Chinese students), for fear of sanctions for themselves and their relatives. 130 66. Some stakeholders interpret freedom of thought as creating State obligations to respect their “cognitive liberty”, namely the “right to control and alter one’s […] thoughts, and thought processes”, including the choice to consume psychoactive substances. 131 They contend that “arbitrary” prohibitions on safe access to mind altering drugs is a de facto prohibition or even State “censorship” on certain thoughts. 132 67. When digital technology companies selectively display or omit information in cyberspace (i.e., “content curation”), they allegedly distort information environments in ways that might manipulate thought. 133 Search results, suggested advertisements and newsfeeds, among others, are curated based on various factors, including an individual’s psychological profile, often with little transparency for users as to what, why and how curation happens. Reportedly, these practices could affect intellectual freedom and critical thinking by “minimiz[ing] exposure to diverse views, [and] interfering with individual agency to seek and share ideas and opinions”, including by creating “echo chambers”. 134 While content moderation practices could slow the viral spread of disinformation and other types of harmful or illegal content, including incitement to hatred and violence, which arguably distort and weaponize information environments, experts caution that both content moderation and any subsequent appeals must be enacted, and their impacts regularly assessed, in a clear, transparent and consistent manner. E. Existing and emerging technologies 1. Inference and predictive technologies 68. Several stakeholders assert that the use of predictive technologies by digital technology companies should raise concerns regarding freedom of thought. Predictive systems, by nature, do not reveal “actual” thoughts. Yet armed with vast and growing quantities of personal and non-personal data, such systems can reportedly build sophisticated individualized psychological profiles, which can potentially infer and even modify thoughts in certain circumstances. 135 69. They also express concern about the proliferation of predictive technologies, such as so-called artificial intelligence-powered polygraphs that make use of artificial intelligence, 136 which feed biometric data (e.g., heart rate, speech patterns and facial features) into “truth detection” algorithms or applica tions that use these data to __________________ 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 21-14191 See https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/06/30/they-dont-understand-fear-we-have/how-chinas-longreach-repression-undermines. See https://www.al-fanarmedia.org/2021/04/self-censorship-in-arab-higher-education-an-untoldproblem/. Submissions from Evgenia Fotiou, Charlotte Walsh, International Drug Policy Consortium and Instituto RIA; and consultation on psychoactive and other drugs. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26838469/, pp. 80–87. See https://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512. A/73/348, para. 12. See https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/4/1036.full.pdf. See https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2021/ 06/Hinkle-The_Modern_Law_Detector.pdf. 19/28