Freedom House to advance the principles of a free and open internet. Democracies should also facilitate dialogue among national policymakers and regulators, allowing them to share best practices and strengthen joint engagement at international standards-setting bodies. The multistakeholder model of internet governance, which is essential for the functioning of the global internet and helps constrain the influence of authoritarian regimes on internet freedom, should be protected at multilateral forums and initiatives, including through the United Nations’ Global Digital Compact. Governments should renew the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum and its regional iterations during the forthcoming World Summit on Information Society+20 Review in 2025 and help ensure that civil society can meaningfully participate in these discussions. The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) should improve its name recognition and its ability to drive diplomatic coordination and global action. The body should more proactively articulate the benefits of a free and open internet to other governments and be more publicly and privately vocal about threats and opportunities for human rights online. The FOC should also create an internal mechanism by which member states’ laws, policies, and activities can be evaluated to ensure that they align with the coalition’s principles. Finally, the FOC should continue to diversify and expand its advisory network. Governments should establish internet freedom programming as a vital component of their democracy assistance strategies, incorporating funding for cybersecurity and digital hygiene into their projects. Program beneficiaries should receive support for open-source and user-friendly technologies that will help them circumvent government censorship, protect themselves against surveillance, and overcome restrictions on connectivity. When new and emerging technologies, such as generative AI, are harnessed for programming, they should be deployed in a rights-respecting way. Democracies should coordinate to ensure that perpetrators who direct or engage in reprisals against people for their online speech face meaningful accountability. This could include imposing targeted sanctions or blocking or revoking visas. Sanctions against state entities should be crafted to minimize their impact on ordinary citizens, and when broad-based sanctions are imposed, democratic governments should carve out exemptions for internet services when relevant. Governments should advocate for the immediate, unconditional release of those imprisoned or detained for online expression that is protected under international human rights standards. Governments should incorporate these cases, in addition to broader internet freedom concerns, into bilateral and multilateral engagement with perpetrator states. Companies Companies should engage in continuous dialogue with civil society to understand the effects of their policies and products. They should seek out local expertise on the political and cultural context in markets where they have a presence or where their products are widely used, especially in repressive settings that present unique human rights challenges. Consultations with civil society groups should inform companies’ decisions to operate in a particular country, their approach to local content moderation, and their development of policies and practices—particularly during elections or crisis events, when managing government requests, and when working to counter online harms. Prior to launching new internet-related or AI services or expanding them to a new market, companies should conduct and publish human rights impact assessments to fully illuminate the ways in which their products and actions might affect rights including freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination, and privacy. Finally, when complying with sanctions and anti–money laundering regulations, companies should coordinate with democratic governments to ensure that their risk mitigation efforts are not negatively and needlessly affecting civilians who have not themselves been sanctioned. @freedomhouse freedomhouse.org 33