Freedom House ABIDING BY INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS These universal standards prioritize free expression and access to information, ensuring restrictions on online content are proportionate, legal, and necessary. INVOLVING LOCAL CIVIL SOCIETY OPERATING WITH TRANSPARENCY When adhering to these principles, governments can strengthen information integrity and safeguard internet freedom. Civil society’s involvement leads to more informed decisions and guards against government overreach and company malfeasance. Transparent processes and decision-making helps foster open debate, trust, and legitimacy with the public. FUNCTIONING WITH INDEPENDENCE AND DEMOCRATIC OVERSIGHT An independent system of oversight can help prevent abuse, ensure accountability, and safeguard the rule of law. This infographic is from the Freedom on the Net 2024 report, as seen on www.freedomhouse.org. act on complaints during the 2019 elections. The likelihood of overreach was increased by the fact that decision-making was left in the hands of regulatory and law enforcement bodies, rather than an independent judiciary with a better record of protecting free expression. Kominfo has previously used the country’s broad definitions of “illegal” speech to censor LGBT+ content, criticism of Islam, and expressions of support for selfdetermination in the Papua region. In India, partisan officials forced tech companies to toe a favorable line ahead of the 2024 elections, displacing the more independent Election Commission of India (ECI) from its role overseeing election-related online information. The ECI declined to strengthen its Voluntary Code of Ethics, a 2019 agreement with platforms that sets out some brief but inadequate commitments regarding online content for the campaign period, and then enforced it sparingly and inconsistently. The ECI’s soft touch created space for intervention by the far more politicized Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which censored BJP critics, independent media, and opposition activists during the campaign. For example, pursuant to orders from the ministry in early 2024, X and Instagram restricted India-based users from viewing @freedomhouse accounts that had mobilized as part of a farmers’ protest movement to advocate for a stronger social safety net. As Brazil prepared for countrywide municipal elections in October 2024, the efforts of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) to safeguard election integrity demonstrated the complexity of upholding internet freedom while countering disinformation campaigns. In February, the TSE issued new rules requiring social media platforms to immediately remove posts that could undermine election integrity if they are “notoriously false,” “seriously out of context,” or present “immediate threats of violence or incitement” against election officials. Platforms that fail to comply face escalating civil penalties. Such problematic content can reduce people’s access to reliable voting information, chill the work of election administrators, and contribute to offline violence. However, the guidelines’ vague categorization and tight removal deadlines risk incentivizing excessive content removal, potentially affecting speech that should be protected under international human rights standards. Greater transparency from the TSE on its legal justification for content restrictions and associated orders to companies would provide much-needed insight into these rules’ impact freedomhouse.org 15