Freedom House Protect global internet freedom Elevate cyber diplomacy and coordination on global technology policy. Democracies should facilitate dialogue among national regulators and strengthen engagement at international standards-setting bodies. Diplomats should coordinate common approaches to countering authoritarian influence within the UN General Assembly, International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and other multilateral bodies. Multilateral decision-making should support but not replace specific internet-governance activities by nongovernmental or multistakeholder organizations. The United States should also push back against the increasing number of data localization requirements around the world. US lawmakers should pass legislation that elevates cyber policy within US foreign policy institutions, fosters greater cooperation among democratic allies, and establishes investment mechanisms for US technology in third countries, such as the Cyber Diplomacy Act (H.R.1251). Prioritize defending and expanding internet freedom as a vital form of democracy, rights, and governance assistance. Recognizing the importance of internet freedom for the safety and efficacy of civil society around the world, governments should further resource digital security and digital activism trainings, and free software provision within existing democracy assistance programs. Governments should increase support for technologies that allow individuals in closed environments to circumvent government censorship, protect themselves against surveillance, and overcome temporary restrictions on connectivity. Such tools should be open-source, user-friendly, and locally responsive in order to ensure high levels of security and use. FOR COMPANIES Ensure fair and transparent content moderation. To ensure content moderation policies that are respectful of users, private companies should: • Prioritize users’ free expression and access to information, particularly for journalism; discussion of human rights; educational materials; and political, social, cultural, religious, and artistic expression. • Clearly and completely explain in guidelines and terms of service what speech is not permissible, what aims such restrictions serve, and how the company assesses content. • When appropriate, consider less invasive alternatives to content removal, such as labeling, fact-checking, adding context, promoting more authoritative sources, and implementing design changes that grant users more control over their information consumption. • Ensure that content removal requests from governments comply with international human rights standards, and use all available channels to push back against problematic requests. • Publish detailed transparency reports on content takedowns, both for those initiated by governments and for those undertaken by the companies themselves. Transparency reports should also address the use of automated and recommendation systems. • Provide an efficient and timely avenue of appeal for users who believe that their rights were unduly restricted, including through censorship, banning, assignment of labels, or demonetization of posts. • Refrain from relying on automated systems for flagging and removing content without opportunity for meaningful human review. • Expand the capacity of content moderation teams by increasing their geographic and linguistic diversity, and conduct human rights due diligence assessments to ensure that implementation of moderation does not disproportionately affect marginalized communities. @freedomhouse freedomhouse.org 27