A/HRC/38/35 67. States and intergovernmental organizations should refrain from establishing laws or arrangements that would require the “proactive” monitoring or filtering of content, which is both inconsistent with the right to privacy and likely to amount to pre-publication censorship. 68. States should refrain from adopting models of regulation where government agencies, rather than judicial authorities, become the arbiters of lawful expression. They should avoid delegating responsibility to companies as adjudicators of content, which empowers corporate judgment over human rights values to the detriment of users. 69. States should publish detailed transparency reports on all content-related requests issued to intermediaries and involve genuine public input in all regulatory considerations. Recommendations for ICT companies 70. Companies should recognize that the authoritative global standard for ensuring freedom of expression on their platforms is human rights law, not the varying laws of States or their own private interests, and they should re-evaluate their content standards accordingly. Human rights law gives companies the tools to articulate and develop policies and processes that respect democratic norms and counter authoritarian demands. This approach begins with rules rooted in rights, continues with rigorous human rights impact assessments for product and policy development, and moves through operations with ongoing assessment, reassessment and meaningful public and civil society consultation. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, along with industry-specific guidelines developed by civil society, intergovernmental bodies, the Global Network Initiative and others, provide baseline approaches that all Internet companies should adopt. 71. The companies must embark on radically different approaches to transparency at all stages of their operations, from rule-making to implementation and development of “case law” framing the interpretation of private rules. Transparency requires greater engagement with digital rights organizations and other relevant sectors of civil society and avoiding secretive arrangements with States on content standards and implementation. 72. Given their impact on the public sphere, companies must open themselves up to public accountability. Effective and rights-respecting press councils worldwide provide a model for imposing minimum levels of consistency, transparency and accountability to commercial content moderation. Third-party non-governmental approaches, if rooted in human rights standards, could provide mechanisms for appeal and remedy without imposing prohibitively high costs that deter smaller entities or new market entrants. All segments of the ICT sector that moderate content or act as gatekeepers should make the development of industry-wide accountability mechanisms (such as a social media council) a top priority. 20