A/HRC/42/58 35. In response to the concerns raised by the representative of Angola, she explained that she has been observing a shift in the discussion in recent years with increased attention given to the question of what are people’s responsibilities and of what States and tech companies can do to address this issue at stack. 36. In response to the question posed by the representative of the African Union, Ms. Daniels stated that it is possible to have some international regulations that will be recognised in all countries. In this regard, she indicated that one of the main challenges is if a major player, like the United States that has a peculiar view on the right to freedom of speech as being an absolute right, does not take action within the international context. She added that Internet service providers and other stakeholders must be held accountable and that regulations like the European Unions’ General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other regulations are important for the way forward. 37. The representative of Angola on behalf of the African Group stated that the decentralised nature of the Internet must not be an excuse not to take action. On the contrary, freedom of expression has to be contained when it comes to the dissemination of violent content, incitement to hatred and xenophobia, which undermines human rights. It is by establishing the framework for fundamental freedoms that other rights can be respected. The dissemination of racist content must be subject to control and liabilities clearly defined. She added that the information and communication technology sector, including webmasters and platforms, should be on-board when it comes to combating racism online. 38. The representative of Burkina Faso supported the statement made by Angola on behalf of the African group and asked Ms. Daniels to explain what avenues could be pursued with a view to drafting complementary standards. 39. The representative of Gambia raised concerns about the difficulty to draw the line between freedom of expression and the need to ensure that incitement through language that is not appropriate in the digital space is subject to some control. He added that those defending the absolute right to freedom of expression should engaged in the discussion. He noted the need to strengthen national regulatory authorities and the importance of exerting continuous pressure and some form of control over the five major firms of the ICT sector who are based in Silicon Valley. 40. In response to the questions raised by the representatives of Burkina Faso, Ms. Daniel indicated that there is a large body of research on language that leads to genocide that could serve as a source of reference for drafting legal definitions of what needs to be criminalized in the view to develop complementary standards. 41. She agreed that the persons who are defending freedom of expression need to take part in the discussion on regulating racist content online. She added that, in recent years, the ICT industry has started to show more openness to regulations but claimed not to know how such regulations would work. 42. During the 4th meeting, the representative of the European Union made a statement on countering illegal hate speech online. 43. The representative of the European Union stated that the European Commission had over the past years worked intensively to ensure that the internet remains a free, safe and tolerant space where EU laws are enforced, in full respect of the right to freedom of expression. Significant efforts have been made in particular to counter the proliferation of illegal hate speech online, as defined by national laws implementing the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia. A major flagship initiative led by the Commission in this area is the Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. In addition to progress in terms of removal of illegal hate speech, the Code of Conduct has fostered synergies between the IT companies, civil society and Member State authorities in the form of a structured process of mutual learning and exchanges of knowledge. The Code of Conduct also recognises the value of independent counter-narratives and support to educational programs fostering positive narratives. In the area of media policy and the digital single market, the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive adopted in 2018 aligned its existing provisions on ‘hate speech’ with the relevant definition in the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia while extending its remit to cover all the 25