{"id":474,"date":"2024-05-17T12:41:47","date_gmt":"2024-05-17T16:41:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/?p=474"},"modified":"2024-05-17T12:45:57","modified_gmt":"2024-05-17T16:45:57","slug":"empty-promises-recent-measures-to-safeguard-human-rights-defenders-lack-effective-enforcement-on-online-platforms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/2024\/05\/17\/empty-promises-recent-measures-to-safeguard-human-rights-defenders-lack-effective-enforcement-on-online-platforms\/","title":{"rendered":"Empty Promises: Recent Measures to Safeguard Human Rights Defenders Lack Effective Enforcement on Online Platforms"},"content":{"rendered":"

I. Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the wake of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023 and the subsequent Israeli attacks on Palestinians, social media giant Meta suppressed upwards of 1,050 Facebook and Instagram posts by Palestinians and their supporters who decried human rights abuses.[1]<\/a> This is one current example of how online platforms fail to protect human rights defenders (\u201cHRDs\u201d) online. In hopes to prevent more situations where HRDs suffer suppression, the United States (the \u201cU.S.\u201d) and the European Union (the \u201cEU\u201d) released joint guidance for online platforms to \u201cprevent, mitigate, and provide remedy for attacks targeting [HRDs] online.\u201d[2]<\/a> Prior to the joint guidance\u2019s announcement in March 2024, the Biden Administration published guidelines to support HRDs in November 2021.[3]<\/a> The Administration\u2019s guidelines targeted U.S. diplomats and failed to address social media platforms\u2019 contribution to the suppression and physical harm of HRDs.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Finally, this past January, several senators introduced the Human Rights Defenders Protection Act, which seeks to protect HRDs \u201cby enhancing the capacity\u201d of the U.S. government to \u201cprevent, mitigate and respond\u201d when HRDs are targeted.[5]<\/a> This bill lacks an enforcement mechanism requiring social media platforms to protect HRDs. Both the joint guidance and the bill are not sufficiently robust due to their lack of enforcement tools for social media platforms to protect HRDs. The U.S. government must create standards enforceable by law for social media companies to (1) publicly disclose their content review and moderation processes, and (2) establish transparent appeal procedures for content take-downs.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

II. Four of the Six Most-Used Social Media Platforms are U.S.-Based Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n

Social media usage is increasingly widespread. In 2023, 4.9 billion people use social media across the world.[7]<\/a> By 2027, that number is expected to grow by about 19 percent.[8]<\/a> The six most used social media platforms are: Facebook (with 3 billion monthly active users), YouTube (2.5 billion), WhatsApp (2 billion), Instagram (2 billion), TikTok (1.5 billion), and WeChat (1.3 billion).[9]<\/a> Facebook, Inc.\u2014rebranded as Meta Platforms, Inc. in 2021\u2014owns and operates Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram.[10]<\/a> Meta is a U.S. corporation headquartered in California.[11]<\/a> YouTube, owned by Google\u2019s parent company Alphabet Inc., is another U.S. corporation headquartered in California.[12]<\/a> Lastly, WeChat and TikTok are both Chinese-based companies.[13]<\/a> TikTok, while a U.S. subsidiary incorporated in the U.S., is owned by ByteDance, a Beijing-based company.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

Social media users are not beholden to a single platform; most users engage with \u201csix to seven platforms every month.\u201d[15]<\/a> As social media platforms have become pervasive, people use these virtual spaces to communicate all sorts of topics, including exposing human rights abuses. Since the majority of the most popular social media platforms are U.S.-based, the U.S. must spearhead the effort to safeguard those who defend human rights on these platforms.<\/p>\n

III. Who Are Human Rights Defenders and Why Do They Need Protection?<\/strong><\/p>\n

HRDs are people who \u201cact to promote or protect human rights in a peaceful manner.\u201d[16]<\/a> To be considered a HRD, one must act peacefully and \u201caccept the universality of human rights\u201d as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[17]<\/a> A HRD need not be correct in their argument to be a rightful defender; the \u201ccritical test\u201d is whether the person\u2019s concerns \u201cfall within the scope of human rights.\u201d[18]<\/a> HRDs are often trade unionists, journalists, lawyers, and advocates of a myriad of causes including (but not limited to) the rights of women, indigenous peoples, and children.[19]<\/a> State and non-state actors target HRDs through online surveillance, harassment, disinformation, doxing, and suppression on online platforms.[20]<\/a> Every year, hundreds of HRDs are murdered; between 2015 and 2019, more than 1,300 HRDs were killed.[21]<\/a> These killings and other forms of retaliatory violence disincentivize HRDs to continue their work.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

The U.S. and EU align their definition of HRDs with the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the \u201cDeclaration on Human Rights Defenders\u201d). In Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13, the Declaration provides specific protections to HRDs. Some of these protections include: the right to seek protection of human rights (Art. 1), the right to unhindered access to and communication with non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations (Art. 5), and the right to develop and discuss new human rights ideas and principles and to advocate their acceptance (Art. 7).[23]<\/a> The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders is not legally binding.[24]<\/a> While not binding, the Declaration contains rights that \u201censhrined in other legally binding international documents,\u201d like, for example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the \u201cICCPR\u201d).[25]<\/a> Article 19 of the ICCPR gives \u201ceveryone\u201d the \u201cright to freedom of expression,\u201d including the \u201cfreedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds\u201d through the \u201cmedia of his choice.\u201d[26]<\/a> The U.S. ratified the ICCPR in 1992, making it legally binding on the U.S.[27]<\/a><\/p>\n

The U.S. and the EU created the joint guidance in response to the \u201crapid growth\u201d of threats against HRDs on online platforms.[28]<\/a> The online threats that HRDs face often \u201cpave the way\u201d for physical human rights violations, such as \u201cbeatings, killings, enforced disappearances, and arbitrary detention.\u201d[29]<\/a> Particularly, online threats and physical attacks disproportionately impact HRDs from marginalized groups because they \u201cexperience multiple and intersecting discriminations.\u201d[30]<\/a> Online platforms, says the U.S. and the EU, must \u201cleverage their resources and influence to reinforce respect for human rights.\u201d[31]<\/a> As such, the U.S. and EU released a joint guidance, which includes ten actions that online platforms can take to protect HRDs.[32]<\/a><\/p>\n

IV. The Joint Guidance Lacks Any Enforcement Mechanism<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ten recommendation actions are as follows: first, online platforms should commit to an HRD protection policy and integrate it throughout their operations.[33]<\/a> Second, they should employ comprehensive \u201crisk assessments\u201d that identify risks to HRDs that could occur on their platforms.\u201d[34]<\/a> These risks should be made public.[35]<\/a> Third, online platforms should provide \u201congoing and transparent dialogue\u201d with networks of HRDs, legal experts, and civil society representatives.[36]<\/a> Fourth, they should have a \u201ccomprehensive implementation plan\u201d for their HRD protection policy, containing internal roadmaps and benchmarks.[37]<\/a> Fifth, online platforms should fully resource and staff \u201chuman rights, trust and safety, and fact-checking functions\u201d and train current staff on how to \u201cidentify and address risks to HRDs.\u201d[38]<\/a><\/p>\n

Sixth, online platforms should consider regional nuances by forming \u201clocal language capacities.\u201d[39]<\/a> Seventh, they should provide safety tools that enable HRDs \u201cto quickly secure or disable their accounts and\/or optional enhanced privacy features.\u201d[40]<\/a> Eighth, online platforms should implement \u201ceffective, accessible, secure, and responsive incident reporting channels\u201d for HRDs.[41]<\/a> Ninth, they should ensure that HRDs have \u201caccess to redress and appeals mechanisms\u201d when HRDs report harassment.[42]<\/a> Tenth and finally, online platforms should \u201cmonitor and evaluate efficacy of HRD protection efforts\u201d and make public reports on findings.[43]<\/a><\/p>\n

The U.S. and EU assert that these recommendations do not \u201cimpose or supersede requirements\u201d under U.S. or EU law.[44]<\/a> The recommendations align with prior commitments by the U.S. and EU. For example, the U.S. committed to guarantee that the Internet strengthens \u201cdemocratic principles and human rights and fundamental freedoms\u201d in a global political commitment called the Declaration for the Future of the Internet.[45]<\/a> Similarly, the recommendations reflect the key principles laid out in the EU\u2019s Digital Services Act, which regulates online platforms to stop illegal online activities and the spread of disinformation.[46]<\/a> Representing the world\u2019s \u201cfirst digital regulation\u201d that holds online platforms accountable for their content, the Digital Services Act\u2019s new rules began to apply on February 17, 2024.[47]<\/a><\/p>\n

The joint guidance merely provides suggestions to online platforms; it does not penalize online platforms for failing to heed the guidance. To effectively protect HRDs on online platforms, recommendations are not enough. Instead, legally-enforceable standards must be established through legislation. Currently, a bill to protect HRDs is before Congress.[48]<\/a><\/p>\n

V. <\/strong>The Human Rights Defenders Protection Act Also <\/strong><\/em>Lacks Any Enforcement Mechanism<\/strong><\/p>\n

Senator Ben Cardin introduced the Human Rights Defenders Protection Act on January 31, 2024 to protect HRDs \u201cwho face reprisals\u201d for their work by bolstering the U.S. government\u2019s ability to \u201cprevent, mitigate, and respond\u201d when such cases occur.[49]<\/a> The bill finds that the U.S. lacks \u201cadequate measures to prevent and respond to cases in which\u2026private companies contribute to attacks on [HRDs].\u201d[50]<\/a> It also calls out the U.S. for, while possessing many tools to prevent perpetrators from harming HRDs, it deploys those tools \u201cunevenly and without clear connections to a broader strategic framework.\u201d[51]<\/a><\/p>\n

Despite the bill\u2019s criticism of the current U.S. policy towards HRDs, the legislation itself fails to adequately address online platforms that target and suppress HRDs. In fact, it entirely lacks tools to enforce protection of HRDs on social media platforms. The bill merely states, \u201cIt shall be the policy of the [U.S.]\u2026to engage<\/em> with the private sector [including social media companies] to respect, support, and when possible<\/em>, protect [HRDs] and prevent human rights violations\u201d (emphasis added).[52]<\/a> The bill does not clarify what \u201cengage\u201d means or if it requires anything at all. And, by stating \u201cwhen possible,\u201d the bill gives the private sector a way out from protecting HRDs. This language is not robust enough to counter suppression of HRDs on online platforms.<\/p>\n

Despite these inadequacies, the bill does require that the U.S. government establish a \u201cGlobal Strategy for Human Rights Defenders,\u201d which could<\/em> eventually include some mandatory obligations by online platforms.[53]<\/a> However, that is not ideal given the uncertainty. The sponsors of the Human Rights Defenders Protection Act should contemplate ways to require social media companies to protect HRDs.<\/p>\n

Standards enforceable by law that compel social media platforms to better protect HRDs must be included in a HRDs law. Perhaps, as an amendment to the bill, a provision should be added that requires<\/em> social media companies (1) to publicly disclose their content review and moderation processes, and (2) to establish appeal proceedings for content take-downs.[54]<\/a> First, requiring online platforms to publicly disclose their content review and moderation processes allows HRDs and the greater public to evaluate whether those processes are breaking the law, to advocate for better processes, and to bring lawsuits. Second, the amendment should mandate that social media companies establish \u201ctransparent appeals processes for challenging decisions to remove, or refusals to remove, flagged content.\u201d[55]<\/a> In the appeal process, online platforms must establish a heightened level of review in \u201ccrisis-ridden or \u2018sensitive\u2019 countries,\u201d where HRDs are especially at risk. A transparent appeals process is \u201cthe only way to effectively ensure that content-moderation policies are applied in a manner that is narrow and proportionate to the actual risk of harm.\u201d[56]<\/a><\/p>\n

VI. Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

While Palestinian HRDs suffer from Meta\u2019s content take-downs, they are not alone in being silenced and harmed by online platforms: Kashmir HRDs,[57]<\/a> Black Lives Matter HRDs,[58]<\/a> Uyghur Muslims HRDs,[59]<\/a> and Burmese HRDs.[60]<\/a> HRDs act peacefully to promote or protect human rights.[61]<\/a> Increasingly, they face online threats that social media companies have failed to protect against.[62]<\/a> Three recent initiatives to bolster protections for HRDs (i.e<\/em>., the Biden Administration\u2019s guidelines in November 2021, U.S.-EU joint guidance in March 2024, and the Human Rights Defenders Act which currently is before Congress) all lack adequate enforcement tools to require social media companies to protect HRDs.[63]<\/a> Instead of suggestions (like the joint guidance) or non-specific language (like in the bill), HRDs facing online threats need a legally-enforceable piece of legislation that mandates<\/em> social media companies (1) to publicly disclose their content review and moderation processes, and (2) create transparent appeal proceedings for content take-downs.[64]<\/a> When that happens, HRDs will possess greater capacity to expose human rights abuses throughout the world and to pressure governments to protect vulnerable persons.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Meta\u2019s Broken Promises: Systematic Censorship of Palestine Content on Instagram and Facebook<\/em>, Human Rights Watch (Dec. 21, 2023), https:\/\/www.hrw.org\/report\/2023\/12\/21\/metas-broken-promises\/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> U.S. Dep\u2019t of State Media Note, United States and European Union Release Joint Guidance for Online Platforms on Protecting Human Rights Defenders Online<\/em> (Mar. 11, 2024), https:\/\/www.state.gov\/united-states-and-european-union-release-joint-guidance-for-online-platforms-on-protecting-human-rights-defenders-online\/.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> U.S. Dep\u2019t of State, Guidelines for U.S. Diplomatic Mission Support to Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders <\/em>(Nov. 2021), https:\/\/www.state.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/Human-Rights-Defenders-Guidance.pdf.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Human Rights Defenders Protection Act, S. 3705, 118th Cong. (2024).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Moderating Online Content: Fighting Harm or Silencing Dissent?<\/em>, UNHRC (July 23, 2021), https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/en\/stories\/2021\/07\/moderating-online-content-fighting-harm-or-silencing-dissent (see section called \u201cFive Actions for a Way Forward\u201d); Richard Ashby Wilson\u00a0&\u00a0Molly K. Land, Persecution of Human Rights Defenders on Social Media: What to Do About It<\/em>, Just Security (June 6, 2019), https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/64422\/persecution-of-human-rights-defenders-on-social-media-what-to-do-about-it\/ (see section called \u201cThree Methods for Smarter Enforcement of Content Policies\u201d).<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Belle Wong, Top Social Media Statistics and Trends of 2024<\/em>, Forbes (May 18, 2023), https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/advisor\/business\/social-media-statistics\/.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Stacy Jo Dixon, Most Popular Social Media Networks Worldwide as of January 2024, Ranked by Number of Monthly Active Users<\/em>, Statista (Feb. 2, 2024), https:\/\/www.statista.com\/statistics\/272014\/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users\/.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Mike Isaac, Facebook Renames Itself Meta<\/em>, N.Y. Times (Oct. 28, 2021), https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/28\/technology\/facebook-meta-name-change.html.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Meta Platforms, Inc. (META)<\/em>, Yahoo! Finance, https:\/\/finance.yahoo.com\/quote\/META\/profile (last visited Apr. 8, 2024).<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Alphabet Inc. (GOOG)<\/em>, Yahoo! Finance, https:\/\/finance.yahoo.com\/quote\/GOOG\/profile (last visited Apr. 8, 2024).<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> WeChat<\/em>, Yahoo! Finance, https:\/\/finance.yahoo.com\/company\/we-chat?h=eyJlIjoid2UtY2hhdCIsIm4iOiJXZUNoYXQifQ==&.tsrc=fin-srch (last visited Apr. 8, 2024).<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Lily Kuo & Annabelle Timsit, What to Know about TikTok Owner ByteDance as U.S. Considers Possible Ban<\/em>, Wash. Post (Mar. 13, 2024), https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/2024\/03\/13\/who-is-tiktok-owner-bytedance\/.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Bella Wong, supra<\/em> note 7.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> About Human Rights Defenders<\/em>, UNHRC, https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/en\/special-procedures\/sr-human-rights-defenders\/about-human-rights-defenders (last visited Mar. 30, 2024).<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> U.S.-EU, Recommended Actions for Online Platforms on Protecting Human Rights <\/em><\/p>\n

Defenders Online <\/em>3 (Mar. 11 2024), https:\/\/www.state.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/HRD-Guidance_Joint_Updated-_-Accessible-3.12.24.pdf [hereinafter \u201cRecommended Actions<\/em>\u201d].<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Mary Lawlor, (Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders), Final Warning: Death Threats and Killings of Human Rights Defenders<\/em>, 4, U.N. Doc. A\/HRC\/46\/35 (Dec. 24, 2020).<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> S. 3705, 118th Cong. \u00a7 2(4) (2024).<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 3-6, U.N Doc. A\/Res\/53\/144 (Mar. 8, 1999); see<\/em> Declaration on Human Rights Defenders<\/em>, UNHRC, https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/en\/special-procedures\/sr-human-rights-defenders\/declaration-human-rights-defenders (last visited Mar. 30, 2024).<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> UNHRC, Commentary to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental<\/em> Freedoms<\/em> (July 2011), https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/sites\/default\/files\/Documents\/Issues\/Defenders\/CommentarytoDeclarationondefendersJuly2011.pdf; see<\/em> U.S. Dep\u2019t of State, United States Guidance for Online Platforms on Protecting Human Rights Defenders Online<\/em> 3 (Mar. 18, 2024), https:\/\/www.state.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/United-States-Guidance-for-Online-Platforms-on-Protecting-Human-Rights-Defenders-Online-1.pdf (The Biden Administration states that the U.S. is \u201ccommitted to the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> UNHRC Commentary, supra<\/em> note 24.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> G.A. Res. 2200 A (XXI), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Dec. 16, 1966).<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> S. Treaty Doc. No. 95-20 (1992).<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Recommended Actions<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 19; European Union Strategic Communication, Le Service Diplomatique de l\u2019Union europ\u00e9enne, EU – U.S. Release Joint Guidance for Online Platforms on Protecting Human Rights Defenders Online <\/em>(Mar. 11, 2024), https:\/\/www.eeas.europa.eu\/node\/439264_fr.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Recommended Actions<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 19, at 3.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> Id<\/em>. at 4.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Id<\/em>. at 5.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> Id<\/em>. at 6.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> Id<\/em>. at 4.<\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> White House Press Release, A Declaration for the Future of the Internet<\/em> (Apr. 2022), https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Declaration-for-the-Future-for-the-Internet_Launch-Event-Signing-Version_FINAL.pdf.<\/p>\n

[46]<\/a> European Commission, The Digital Services Act: Ensuring a Safe and Accountable Online Environment<\/em>, European Union, https:\/\/commission.europa.eu\/strategy-and-policy\/priorities-2019-2024\/europe-fit-digital-age\/digital-services-act_en (last visited Mar. 31, 2024).<\/p>\n

[47]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[48]<\/a> S. 3705, 118th Cong. (2024).<\/p>\n

[49]<\/a> U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Press Release, Chair Cardin Introduces Legislation to Protect Human Rights Defenders Worldwide<\/em> (Jan. 31, 2024), https:\/\/www.foreign.senate.gov\/press\/dem\/release\/chair-cardin-introduces-legislation-to-protect-human-rights-defenders-worldwide.<\/p>\n

[50]<\/a> S. 3705, 118th Cong. \u00a7 2(12) (2024).<\/p>\n

[51]<\/a> Id<\/em>. at \u00a7 2(13).<\/p>\n

[52]<\/a> Id<\/em>. at \u00a7 4(3).<\/p>\n

[53]<\/a> Id<\/em>. at \u00a7 5.<\/p>\n

[54]<\/a> Moderating online content<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 6; Richard Ashby Wilson\u00a0&\u00a0Molly K. Land, supra<\/em> note 6.<\/p>\n

[55]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[56]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[57]<\/a> Social Media Giants Accused of \u201cSilencing\u201d Kashmir Voices<\/em>, Al Jazeera (Oct. 1, 2021), https:\/\/www.aljazeera.com\/news\/2021\/10\/1\/kashmir-report-accuses-us-social-media-giants-of-censorship.<\/p>\n

[58]<\/a> TikTok Press Release, Vanessa Pappas (TikTok US General Manager) & Kudzi Chikumbu (Director of Creator Community), A Message to Our Black Community<\/em> (Jun. 1, 2020), https:\/\/newsroom.tiktok.com\/en-us\/a-message-to-our-black-community.<\/p>\n

[59]<\/a> Anna Fifield, TikTok\u2019s Owner is Helping China\u2019s Campaign of Repression in Xinjiang, Reports Finds<\/em>, Wash. Post (Nov. 28, 2019), https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/tiktoks-owner-is-helping-chinas-campaign-of-repression-in-xinjiang-report-finds\/2019\/11\/28\/98e8d9e4-119f-11ea-bf62-eadd5d11f559_story.html.<\/p>\n

[60]<\/a> Alexandra Stevenson, Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar<\/em>, N.Y. Times (Nov. 6, 2018), https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/11\/06\/technology\/myanmar-facebook.html.<\/p>\n

[61]<\/a> About Human Rights Defenders<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 16.<\/p>\n

[62]<\/a> Recommended Actions<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 19; European Union Strategic Communication, Le Service Diplomatique de l\u2019Union europ\u00e9enne, EU – U.S. Release Joint Guidance for Online Platforms on Protecting Human Rights Defenders Online <\/em>(Mar. 11, 2024), https:\/\/www.eeas.europa.eu\/node\/439264_fr.<\/p>\n

[63]<\/a> Recommended Actions<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 19; Guidelines for U.S. Diplomatic Mission<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 3; S. 3705, 118th Cong. (2024).<\/p>\n

[64]<\/a> Moderating online content<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 6; Richard Ashby Wilson\u00a0&\u00a0Molly K. Land, supra<\/em> note 6.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I. Introduction In the wake of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023 and the subsequent Israeli attacks on Palestinians, social media giant Meta suppressed upwards of 1,050 Facebook and Instagram posts by Palestinians and their supporters who decried human rights abuses.[1] This is one current example of how online platforms fail to protect human […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,4,24],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-474","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-human-rights","7":"category-immigration-law","8":"category-international-law","9":"czr-hentry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=474"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/474\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":490,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/474\/revisions\/490"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}