A/HRC/38/35 provide insight into the factors they assess in determining a violation, its severity and the action taken in response. In the context of hate speech, explaining how specific cases are resolved may help users better understand how companies approach difficult distinctions between offensive content and incitement to hatred, or how considerations such as the intent of the speaker or the likelihood of violence are assessed in online contexts. Granular data on actions taken will also establish a basis to evaluate the extent to which companies are narrowly tailoring restrictions. The circumstances under which they apply less intrusive restrictions (such as warnings, age restrictions or demonetization) should be explained. 48. Non-discrimination. Meaningful guarantees of non-discrimination require companies to transcend formalistic approaches that treat all protected characteristics as equally vulnerable to abuse, harassment and other forms of censorship. 129 Indeed, such approaches would appear inconsistent with their own emphasis that context matters. Instead, when companies develop or modify policies or products, they should actively seek and take into account the concerns of communities historically at risk of censorship and discrimination. B. Processes for company moderation and related activities Responses to government requests 49. As company transparency reports show, Governments pressure them to remove content, suspend accounts and identify and disclose account information. Where required by local law, it may appear that companies have little choice but to comply. But companies may develop tools that prevent or mitigate the human rights risks caused by national laws or demands inconsistent with international standards. 50. Prevention and mitigation. Companies often claim to take human rights seriously. But it is not enough for companies to undertake such commitments internally and provide ad hoc assurances to the public when controversies arise. Companies should also, at the highest levels of leadership, adopt and then publicly disclose specific policies that “direct all business units, including local subsidiaries, to resolve any legal ambiguity in favour of respect for freedom of expression, privacy, and other human rights”. Policies and procedures that interpret and implement government demands to narrow and “ensure the least restriction on content” should flow from these commitments. 130 Companies should ensure that requests are in writing, cite specific and valid legal bases for restrictions and are issued by a valid government authority in an appropriate format. 131 51. When faced with problematic requests, companies should seek clarification or modification; solicit the assistance of civil society, peer companies, relevant government authorities, international and regional bodies and other stakeholders; and explore all legal options for challenge.132 When companies receive requests from States under their terms of service or through other extralegal means, they should route these requests through legal compliance processes and assess the validity of such requests under relevant local laws and human rights standards. 52. Transparency. In the face of censorship and associated human rights risks, users can only make informed decisions about whether and how to engage on social media if interactions between companies and States are meaningfully transparent. Best practices on how to provide such transparency should be developed. Company reporting about State requests should be supplemented with granular data concerning the types of requests received (e.g., defamation, hate speech, terrorism-related content) and actions taken (e.g., partial or full removal, country-specific or global removal, account suspension, removal granted under terms of service). Companies should also provide specific examples as often 129 130 131 132 16 See, for example, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, arts. 1 (4) and 2 (2). See A/HRC/35/22, paras. 66−67. Submissions by Global Network Initiative, pp. 3−4 and GitHub, pp. 3−5. See A/HRC/35/22, para. 68.