A/HRC/46/58 66. Companies should ensure that contextual analysis involves minorities by ensuring that such groups are involved in the development and implementation of the most effective approaches to address harms caused by hate speech on social media platforms. 67. Companies should also ensure that their content moderators and fact-checkers are trained in international human rights standards, and have a sound understanding of local cultures, contexts and languages, including their nuances, and of antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Gypsyism, caste-based hate and other forms of hate. 68. Internet companies and social media platforms should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definitions of antisemitism, Holocaust denial, and anti-Gypsyism/anti-Roma discrimination. 69. Companies should publish comprehensive reports on hate speech removals, which should include disaggregated data on the types of removed content and users, along with key drivers for increased occurrences, such as before elections and after terrorist attacks. Data on removals should be accompanied by information concerning accuracy of automated removal systems and information on decisions of appeals relating to hate speech content removal. Academic researchers, organizations and other stakeholders should be given access to data for independent analysis and for purposes of ensuring transparency. 70. Social media companies should develop and adopt alternatives to the banning of accounts and the removal of content, including de-amplification and demonetization education, counter speech, and the promotion of human rights and positive social values. Other initiatives include reporting and training, which promote alternative and positive narratives about persons belonging to minorities. This could be done in coordination with national human rights institutions and/or non-governmental organizations. 71. United Nations bodies, officials and diplomats should pay particular care to avoid promoting approaches to addressing hate speech that have the potential to undermine international human rights law, in particular with regard to freedom of expression, and to also undermine the obligations to criminalize incitement to genocide and prohibit advocacy that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Such unacceptable approaches would rely on censorship or criminal sanctions to restrict expressions unjustifiably, such as “anti-hate speech” laws, which have been adopted by or are being considered by many countries and which criminalize broad classes of speech, including expression that is lawful under international human rights law. 72. The Special Rapporteur on minority issues and other relevant special procedure mandate holders should follow-up with States on whether and how they have taken action to implement their obligations and responsibilities to address and counter specific cases of hate speech against minorities. 73. The Special Rapporteur on minority issues and other human rights treaty bodies should be encouraged to engage with regional bodies and national human rights institutions or similar bodies to address issues of regional hate speech, both online and offline, but more importantly, to develop language and standards for a contextualized and nuanced approach to addressing those problems. 74. International and regional intergovernmental organizations should continue to ensure that hate speech remains on the global agenda and that they use existing human rights principles and standards to ensure that stakeholders continue to engage and respond. In addition, while civil society, non-governmental organizations and minority youth continue to have a seat at the table, international and regional intergovernmental organizations should continue to be able to raise hate speech concerns with States and Internet companies, and to obtain meaningful responses. 9