The Global Network Initiative: A Quiet Risk for Free Expression?
How companies may be complicit in censoring legitimate speech through their GNI Membership
Many companies have leaned on their association with the Global Network Initiative (GNI) to reassure stakeholders that their products aren’t being used to censor legitimate speech. On its face, that sounds comforting. After all, who could object to an organization that claims to be a “multistakeholder collaboration to protect freedom of expression and privacy in tech”?
But scratch beneath the surface, and a more complicated picture emerges.
The Precedent: GARM
This isn’t the first time major corporations have used industry groups as cover. Many companies that claim to champion free speech were previously members of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). This “responsible media” group which was publicly aiming to counteract “harmful content” was privately working to censoring mainstream perspectives online.
GARM’s brand safety framework demonetized or suppressed content it deemed to:
Spread “hate speech” or “misinformation”
Discuss “debated social issues in a negative or partisan context”
“Vilif[y]” individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity
In practice, that meant legitimate speech from mainstream voices, including The Federalist, The Daily Wire, and The New York Post, was flagged and suppressed. GARM members were, at minimum, complicit in this censorship.
Enter: The Global Network Initiative (GNI)
Although the GNI’s framework differs from GARM’s, the outcome is not necessarily distinct. The GNI is governed by its Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, which, according to its website, “provide high-level guidance to the tech industry on how to respect, protect, and advance users’ rights” when governments impose demands or restrictions.
These principles are “based on internationally recognized laws and standards for human rights”, including:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
The application of GNI’s principles is further informed by:
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN Guiding Principles)
On the surface, these documents contain boilerplate human-rights language no one opposes. However, hidden in some of these documents is a catch.
The “Other Status” Clause
Documents like the ICCPR and ICESCR prohibit discrimination on grounds such as race, sex, religion, but also “other status.” This vague phrase has, in recent years, been interpreted to include gender identity.
In practice, this means speech challenging gender ideology could be construed as discriminatory under GNI’s guiding framework. And if GNI members, like Google or Microsoft, are bound to these interpretations, they may end up censoring lawful, legitimate viewpoints simply because they cut against prevailing progressive norms.
It is also worth noting that GNI’s internal Code of Conduct explicitly recognizes gender identity as a protected category.
Case Study 19: LGBT Apps in Asia
In case anyone thinks this is hyperbolic, GNI’s own materials illustrate this risk. In its 2018/2019 report, The GNI Principles at Work, GNI highlighted real-world case studies on freedom of expression and privacy challenges in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector, showing how governments and companies interact in ways that affect human rights online. This report uses real-world examples, including censorship requests, surveillance demands, and content removals, to illustrate the application of the Global Network Initiative Principles.
Case Study 19 provides a great example of how GNI Principles could influence the decisions of major tech companies. This case involves governments in Asia requesting the removal of 65 LGBT-related applications, including dating services and community platforms, from app stores. According to the company that received the government request for takedown, it came with a threat of police action and blocking the company from operating in the country.
To avoid this scenario, the company applied a step-by-step review for each app:
Has this app violated any developer content policies or terms of use?
Has the content from this app directly violated any local laws, including obscenity laws?
If there are any identified issues, can they be corrected by the app developer?
What impact would the removal of the app have on human rights?
In short, some apps were removed for violating company policies or obscenity laws, but many remained since the company “identified freedom of expression and association as key issues at stake”.
GNI frames this case study as a vindication of its Principles and a victory for the LGBT community. While the case study does not explicitly state it, the takedown request contravened international law and the GNI Principles by discriminating against individuals based on their “gender identity” - an area safeguarded under the ICCPR’s and the ICESCR’s “other status” provision.
This framing is revealing: GNI recognizes “gender identity” as a real ontological category, the acknowledgement and protection of which is essential to the advancement of human rights. Therefore, when a government restricts transgender content, according to the GNI Principles, this would be discriminatory. Pre-emptively labeling content that challenges the concept of gender identity as discriminatory and in violation of international law contributes to a climate where those who do not believe in modern gender ideology are unable or unwilling to respectfully voice dissent for fear of online, legal, or physical consequences.
Following the Money
Finally, it’s worth noting that the GNI has received funding from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and is currently supported by the Ford Foundation, two organizations well known for advancing progressive political causes.
This doesn’t automatically discredit the GNI. But it does raise questions about ideological leanings and whether its guidance to members reflects a genuinely neutral defense of expression or the advancement of a particular worldview.
A Solid Yellow Flag
Here’s the concern: as long as the GNI’s framework is grounded in human rights treaties that include the elastic phrase “other status,” there is no guarantee that its members won’t use or be complicit in their services censoring legitimate speech.
The risks of using GNI’s framework are not as obvious as the risks of using GARM’s were (for those who read its Brand Safety Framework anyway). But risks are there all the same. So when companies raise their GNI membership as a defense from concerns over censorship, stakeholders should not back off from pressing for clarity.
Membership in the Global Network Initiative should not reassure us that companies are not censoring speech, but it also should not make us panic. For now, it should raise a solid yellow flag.