ARTICLE 19 Tech company responses and the UNGP of its complaints system. In China, although the space for domestic civil society is very constrained, international advocates have helped to draw attention to tech company cooperation in Chinese censorship, such as by flagging and tracking content removals. Local civil society often has good knowledge of the local context and may be aware of security risks facing local human rights defenders. Companies can benefit from partnerships with these groups, although they need to be cautious of overburdening non-profits with requests for assistance, given that such groups typically operate with constrained resources and budgets, and of creating risks for them. Tech companies have human rights responsibilities, even when operating in highly authoritarian contexts. Although tech companies reference the UNGPs, they generally do so only in a superficial manner or read the UNGPs as allowing them to cite local law as a justification for cooperating in human rights abuses. Tech companies should integrate the UNGPs into their operations in a much more rigorous manner, putting in place transparent systems for handling problematic government requests, reporting transparently on how they respond to these requests, and pushing back on requests based on vague or unclear laws. They should also explore broader industry-wide advocacy for a range of freedom of expression and privacy issues and not merely those that carry a heavy commercial burden (such as data localisation requirements). In an era of tech sector lay-offs, companies should continue to allocate sufficient resources and staffing to human rights issues. So far, tech company leadership in implementing the UNGPs in authoritarian countries in Asia has been lacking. 58