A/HRC/46/57 Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The implication of freedom of expression is that it must be possible to express views and openly debate and criticize opinions and institutions, even if offensive or disturbing. The key is that expression that constitutes direct and public incitement to genocide must be criminalized, and advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence must be prohibited. 64. As discussed, under international law, a number of other forms of expression, some of which may be understood to constitute less severe hate speech, may be restricted exceptionally only as provided by law and as necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. 65. Focusing on the forms of hate speech that States must prohibit and in some cases criminalize (incitement to genocide and advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to violence, hostility or discrimination), it should be made clear that States are required to ensure that their legal obligations are respected by social media platforms, since the latter constitute the main ecosystems in which prohibited forms of hate speech have found particularly fertile ground. 66. At the other end of the spectrum, Poland has recently proposed legislation that owners of social media platforms should be prohibited from deleting content or banning users that do not break Polish legislation. While this measure has been presented and can be perceived as intended to protect freedom of expression, the question remains as to whether Polish law conforms to the State’s international legal obligations to criminalize incitement to genocide and prohibit advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. In other words, legislation such as that proposed could breach human rights law if it restricts social media owners and protects freedom of speech in a way that is inconsistent with international law. E. Role and responsibilities of owners of social media 67. As private corporations, social media platforms currently enjoy a large degree of financial and other immunity in some States for being the carriers of hate and violence and even calls of genocide against minorities and others. Nevertheless, while private owners of property and platforms such as social media have the right to decide whom they will serve and accommodate, they are not above the law if their action results in forms of harm that must be prohibited under international human rights law. 68. A small number of the world’s social media platforms, such as Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter, reach billions of people almost instantaneously. They are among the richest companies in the world. Their business models rely on engagement, and on algorithms that intentionally amplify content to keep users engaged, but they are also echo chambers that are too often narrow sources of information and concentrate bias and prejudices. 69. The online platforms’ business models depend on maximizing profit by maximizing reading or viewing times. They make their money by enabling advertisers to target audiences with precision, so it is in their interests to design algorithms that will funnel users towards communities and themes on which they will spend the most time. Studies confirm that this has had an unexpected consequence of “rabbit-holing” individuals, of diverting them towards extreme or obsessive content, such as videos that promote conspiracy theories or are otherwise divisive, misleading or false – and hateful. In June 2019, for example, YouTube changed one algorithm to halve the number of views of videos deemed “borderline content” for spreading misinformation, as part of efforts to remove neo-Nazi and white supremacist videos. 70. These algorithms feed, concentrate and funnel hate and intolerance: almost two out of three people who join an extremist group (most of which again propagate hate speech against minorities) do so because of the recommendations pushed forward by the algorithms in social 12