A/HRC/44/49/Add.2 (f) Provide appropriate remediation, including through operational-level grievance mechanisms that users may access without aggravating their “sense of disempowerment” (principles 22, 29 and 31).” 95 42. In general, companies are obligated under domestic law to comply with local laws where they do business. The commitment to local legal compliance can be complicated when relevant State law is vague, subject to varying interpretations or inconsistent with human rights law. Companies are often under pressure to comply with State laws that criminalize content that is said to be, for instance, blasphemous, critical of the State, defamatory of public officials. The Guiding Principles provide tools to minimize the impact of such laws on individuals. 43. Since 2018, significant research has been done to analyze private content moderation, delve deeper into the relation companies have with States, and to push forward ways in which human rights can be at the center of content moderation. Outside of state-private cooperation, private companies have a plethora of tools at their disposal to suppress artistic expression. As the digital era progresses, the impact of private rules is increasingly meaningful for artists and audiences.96 44. As a result of issues of scale, most platforms have a dual system for censoring expression that is flagged as violating terms of service. First, an algorithm checks for posts in violation and second, users can flag posts they deem inappropriate. Under these terms of service, artists are often wrongfully censored for posting material that is controversial or in any way subjectively offensive to any user. The artificial intelligence used to identify that type of content has intrinsic problems that facilitate the removal of legal content97. Besides the race and sex biases that are incorporated in the design of the artificial intelligence, it has trouble with the intricacies of language, being unable to grasp the complexities of colloquial speech and humor. This poses problems for written art as well as art in the form of images, as both forms of digital expression can be improperly removed from platforms, stripping artists of their voice and their audience. 45. Freemuse has found that 83 percent of online restrictions were on the grounds of indecency. Additionally, companies such as Facebook/Instagram, Twitter and YouTube removed artistic content allegedly containing “hate speech, pornographic or sexually suggestive material, or politically sensitive content.”98 Obscenity, indecency and similar terms are often vaguely worded. This results in moderators allegedly making decisions with unclear guidelines.99 For example, in 2017, Facebook removed a photo of the painting Women Lovers by Charles Blackman due to violations of community guidelines. Facebook cited that the painting violated the platform’s rule against “advertising adult products or services.” 100 Additionally, both Instagram and Facebook removed photos posted by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts which were intended to promote a photography exhibit. Again, Facebook removed this post because it “violated decency standards.”101 46. Company actions often leave artists without recourse. Artists reportedly have experienced shutdowns of personal and professional Facebook and Twitter pages, with no explanation of why their pages were deactivated, how to get reactivation, and whether or not an appeals process was available to them. Violations of vague community guidelines can 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 Report on Content Moderation A/HRC/38/35, ¶11. See Freemuse, The State of Artistic Freedom 2019, available at https://freemuse.org/resources/item/the-state-of-artistic-freedom-2019/. For more details se Report on content moderation A/HRC/38/35 and Report on Artificial Intelligence A/73/348 (2018). Freemuse, The state of Artistic Freedom 2019, p. 55. Freemuse, Privatising Censorship, Digitising Violence: Shrinking Space of Women’s Rights to Create in the Digital Age, 2019, Available at: https://freemuse.org/resources/ item_category /privatisingcensorship-digitising-violence-shrinking-space-of-womens-rights-to-create-in-the-digital-age/. The Guardian, Facebook's ban on Charles Blackman nude artwork attacked as 'living in the 1950s', 28 February 2017; Freemuse, The state of Artistic Freedom 2018, p. 38. Alyssa Buffenstein, MFA Boston Is the Latest Museum Driven Crazy by Instagram Censorship, 26 April 2017; Freemuse, The state of Artistic Freedom 2018, p. 38. See Facebook, Community Standards: 14. Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity. 15