A/HRC/26/49 4. Models of regulation initiated by Internet and social media providers 51. Internet and social media providers also have set up internal regulatory frameworks; for example, Google has implemented an internal regulation policy that allows users to report content that they believe should be flagged for removal by Google services (www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/faq/). Through the system, users submit separate requests on an online form for each service from which they believe content should be removed. These are considered legal notices, each of which is entered in a database, called “Chilling Effects”, on requests for the removal of information from the Internet. The purpose of Chilling Effects is to protect websites from cease-and-desist orders issued by people claiming that posted content is copyrighted, and to determine whether the content is illegal or violates Google policies. While Google has set up a process for removing offensive information, such as racist contents or hate speech, the final say in determining which content to remove or hide remains the sole prerogative of Google. 52. Similarly, Twitter adheres to a policy on reporting violations of the website’s terms of service (http://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222-country-withheld-content), which comprises an internal process of deciding which tweets should be removed for violating terms. The policy only highlights which content is not allowed, such as impersonation, sharing a third person’s private information, and violence and threats, which raises the issue of lack of transparency in this internal regulatory process. 53. Another social media platform, Facebook, has also set up a removal policy for offensive content, although there have been criticism to its apparent lack of transparency. The Special Rapporteur was informed that users have been confronted with the arbitrary removal of content deemed abusive or offensive without being given. He also learned that users who reported racist or offensive content had not seen it removed, despite complaints submitted to social media moderators. Although Facebook has an extensive list in its terms of service (www.facebook.com/legal/terms) of prohibited content, users still do not know exactly what content will be censored, removed or left unattended, given that the platform retains the power to remove posts and content giving any reason. This lack of transparency has raised concern for users, some of whom believe that the process and reasons for removing posted content are unfair and prejudicial, while other requests to remove racist or offensive material are ignored. 54. The Special Rapporteur notes that Internet providers and social media platforms seem to be increasingly adapting their norms and policies to the State where users post content. Providers and platforms accordinglyrecord, store and provide information on users and information accessed, sometimes a prerequisite for permission to operate in the country concerned. The Special Rapporteur also reiterates his concern at the issue of what content is be considered “racist”, “illegal” or “inciting hatred”, and his views that Internet providers and social media networks should not make decisions regarding user-generated content, and take such actions as removing or filtering content on their own.7 He also agrees with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression that censorship measures should never be delegated to private entities, and that intermediaries such as social media platforms should not be held liable for refusing to take action that infringes individuals’ human rights. Any requests to prevent access to content or to disclose private information for strictly limited purposes, such as the administration of criminal justice, should be submitted through a court or a competent body independent of political, commercial or other unwarranted influences. 8 7 8 14 See A/67/326, para. 48. A/HRC/17/27, para. 75.