# IGF 2026 WS #197 Fighting Online Hate: Global Appeals Mechanisms

## Description

Big Tech has changed the way platform moderation works. Meta made sweeping changes to its “Harmful Conduct” community standards. X saw unprecedented levels of hate speech engagement, with persistent year on year increases since 2022. With content moderation and review increasingly becoming AI driven, and with the ever changing enforcement standards becoming politically charged, recourse in terms of the takedown or restoration of content on platforms has become a coin toss at best. The net effect of this has meant that hate speech online has seen a significant uptick.
However, new enforcement models in India and the EU provide an interesting opportunity to discuss best practices when it comes to appealing social media review decisions and combating hate speech. India has opted for the State oversight route with the introduction of the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), an online forum for users to appeal decisions. The GAC is staffed by the Executive and passes binding decisions.
The DSA has created an out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism, where recognized bodies offer an additional opportunity for users to resolve content moderation disputes with online platforms. While the decisions are non-binding in nature, both platforms and users are asked to engage in good faith.
Additionally, the Meta Oversight Board, an external body that people can appeal to if they disagree with Meta's content enforcement decisions on Facebook, Instagram, or Threads also provides a third avenue.
This workshop presents an opportunity to understand global best practices in appealing hate speech online. SFLC.in has filed over 75 appeals against hate speech. DAHRD has filed over 400 with Appeals Center, and our findings from the divergent approaches taken by the Global Majority and Global Minority will provide participants a hands-on approach to creating a safer internet, as well as reassessing what platform accountability looks like in today's paradigm.

## Policy Question(s)

1. How have platform moderation policies failed to counter speech, and what enforcement models work?
2. Should the State intervene to address the harms of hate speech?
3. How can platform accountability coexist with free speech?

## Expected Outcomes

This workshop will provide participants an opportunity to review three unique models of platform accountability practices. Key conclusions and learnings from the hosts with their unique experiences will be utilized to develop a working model of best practices for other jurisdictions to consider. Considering the impacts of the Brussels Effect and the Delhi Effect in exporting laws on platform regulation to neighboring jurisdictions, this workshop will provide timely insights into what goes right and wrong when it comes to appeals emanating from platform decisions. It will help address prominent issues, but also develop alternative pathways to addressing appeals through more robust measures. This will help in guiding stakeholders based in jurisdictions where such mandates are in a consideration stage. Post session outputs will be materialized through collaborative campaigns and follow-up events based on the developments across the world.

## Format

Classroom
**Duration (minutes):** 90
**Format description:** The classroom format works best as we will in the beginning provide an overview of the three styles of appeals redressal and our experiences with the same.
We will then be engaging in breakout groups with our participants. Each of the three models- GAC, DSA, and Oversight Board will hand over case studies to their respective groups, before allowing them to adjudicate the same.
Lastly, we will form back into a class and discuss our learnings and come to a common consensus for what a better model of appeals can be.

## Hybrid Format

**Hybrid Format:** We will develop case studies to circulate both to online and offline participants so that both can engage with the workshop. The online moderator will ensure that online participants can ask questions to the speakers, as well as present their analysis of the case studies.
If enough online participants join, we will facilitate break out rooms for them, with each group getting time to discuss the case study, make arguments, and adjudicate the same.

## Organizers

**Organizer 1:** Nilay Shah, Software Freedom Law Center, India
**Organizer 2:** Ritumbra Manuvie, University of Groningen

## Speakers

**Speaker 1:** Nilay Shah, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
**Speaker 2:** Ritumbra Manuvie, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
**Speaker 3:** Nighat Dad, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
**Speaker 4:** Thomas Hughes, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

## Moderator

Nilay Shah, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

## Online Moderator

Angela Thomas, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

## Rapporteur

Nilay Shah, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

## Participant Benefits

What will participants gain from attending this session?

## SDGs

16.3
16.6
17.8