The 13th RightsCon summit, the world’s largest gathering for human rights in the digital age, wrapped up last week in Taipei, Taiwan. Over the course of RightsCon 25, ARTICLE 19 led on and engaged in conversations about some of the biggest issues facing the digital rights community – from the role of online platforms during times of war to protecting digital freedoms in the face of China’s rising authoritarian global influence to information integrity.
Protecting free expression in times of conflict
With more than 120 active armed conflicts across the world, war and its impact on freedom of expression was one of the main themes of this year’s summit.
Modern conflicts are increasingly characterised by comprehensive attempts to censor and violate people’s right to free expression and access to information, which can be as life-saving as humanitarian aid. Government-imposed internet shutdowns to disrupt communication and hide violence, the use of cybercrime laws to censor or restrict critical reporting, and the deliberate targeting of journalists reporting on the ground were all high on the agenda for discussion at RightsCon. As panelist Sudanese digital rights researcher Khattab Hamad put it during one session, control over the ‘information space becomes as important as control over territory’.
Protecting free expression, including safeguarding independent journalism, during times of armed conflict is essential for accountability and democratic resilience. A panel moderated by Digital Security Lab Ukraine explored practical challenges of navigating tensions between national security and the need to protect free expression. In a conversation bringing examples from Ukraine and Armenia, panelists agreed that any measures restricting freedom of expression in the name of protecting information security in times of war should be grounded in human rights law, and must always be applied with the strict adherence to principles of legality, legitimacy, necessity and proportionality.
Discussions also centred on social media platforms and the increasingly central role they play in today’s wars. Not only are these platforms weaponised by warring parties to spread ‘disinformation’, propaganda and even dehumanising rhetoric, but their algorithms and content moderation practices often exacerbate the spread of potentially harmful content online, as has happened in Myanmar or Ethiopia, or silence entire communities, for example in Palestine. Content moderation practices often fail to make nuanced assessments and are easily abused. Too often, platforms are all too willing to succumb to undue governmental pressure to remove content.
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and their prioritisation of human rights law and international humanitarian law, have an important role to play here. The dangers of platforms becoming complicit in undue censorship are rife, so it is imperative that companies running platforms use these Principles to establish rules for responding to conflict – rules that must also apply to governments and state actors in their interactions with online platforms.
But, as panelist Shannon Raj Singh pointed out, too often platforms fail to honour these obligations, with human rights responsibilities being brushed aside if they interfere with profit-making. Some jurisdictions have mounted legal efforts to hold platforms accountable for their role in fuelling violence and conflict – including in Kenya, where Meta is being sued for its alleged role in fuelling ethnic violence in Ethiopia, and in the United States, where Rohingya refugees argue that Meta contributed to the genocide in Myanmar. It remains to be seen whether those efforts will ultimately be successful, but panelists agreed that other forms of accountability, including public pressure, must continue to play a role in keeping up the pressure on platforms.
International accountability mechanisms, including the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, have been slow in considering how violations of freedom of expression can contribute to the commission of atrocities in conflicts. As highlighted during the panel on ‘information wars’, freedom of expression is too often a secondary concern, so civil society and digital rights activists must continue to engage with UN bodies and accountability mechanisms, and advocate for strengthening the international justice processes. Given that militaries and other authorities root debates about the digital aspects of conflict in the language of order and security, it is vital that the human rights community stands up for free expression as a necessity, not a luxury. Attacks on it perpetuate violence and entrench impunity. Only by protecting free expression can we ensure accountability and foster conditions that can support lasting peace and security.
Social media remains a vital lifeline for populations exposed to genocide and atrocities, as the discussion ‘Navigating a Minefield? Roles and Responsibilities of Online Platforms in Times of War’ made clear. Social media may be a battlefield for information, but it is also a crucial tool for survivors and activists to share their experiences. There is an urgent need to create archives that document war crimes and human rights violations to prevent historical revisionism and genocide denial.
China’s growing digital repression
Taiwan, which hosted this year’s RightsCon, is at the sharp end of China’s digital attacks: last year alone, Taiwanese government networks were subjected to 2.4 million cyberattacks each day. This does not account for the number of attacks against Taiwanese accounts overall, which was undoubtedly higher. China has also targeted the physical layer of the internet in sabotaging Taiwan’s undersea fibreoptic cables. So it was apt that ARTICLE 19 also focused discussions on the growing role of China’s digital repression in the region and beyond.
ARTICLE 19’s research on the Digital Silk Road and our latest report on the diffusion of China’s repressive cybersecurity governance norms in the Indo-Pacific document China’s ongoing exporting of its digital authoritarianism playbook across the world. Doublethink Lab’s China Index, which measures China’s global influence across 9 different domains, reveals that Chinese firms are increasingly funding digital infrastructure projects – supported by government collaboration, including on Artificial Intelligence and cloud computing. Exploiting development connectivity needs, cooperation agreements signed under the Digital Silk Road initiative go hand in hand with adoption of more repressive policies and norms to exert greater control over the internet through mass data gathering and censorship. In a panel discussion entitled ‘China Index Dialogue: protecting digital freedoms?’ co-hosted by ARTICLE 19 and Doublethink Lab, panellists outlined how countries in the Indo-Pacific region, Africa, and Europe are taking lessons from China, mirroring its models of information control and surveillance. The world must build greater awareness of the dangers of these collaborations, the panel experts argued, highlighting the essential role the international community must play in supporting internet and technology development that offers a real, rights-respecting alternative.
ARTICLE 19 co-hosted a panel with Hong Kong Watch and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), exploring deteriorating digital rights in Hong Kong. Discussion focused on the role Beijing-imposed legislation – the 2020 National Security Law, the 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance and the new Cybersecurity Law – have played in silencing dissent and severely restricting access to information about what is happening in Hong Kong. The extraterritorial reach of those laws have enabled authorities to pressure platforms to block content, such as the famous ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ pro-democracy protest anthem. For the most part, companies running these platforms have remained silent and have not pushed back when confronted with these egregious demands, failing in their duty to respect the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Panelists also spoke about the impact China’s transnational repression has had on the Hong Kong diaspora community.
Another panel discussion at RightsCon focused specifically on digital transnational repression. ARTICLE 19 joined representatives from Hong Kong and Tibetan communities to discuss China’s persistent use of online threats, surveillance, gender-based harassment, doxxing, and information manipulation to silence dissent and debate. Panellists described how many activists choose to exercise self-censorship, retreating from online spaces, and even severing ties with their loved ones out of fear for their safety. Lobsang Gyatso Sither from the Tibet Action Institute outlined the protracted digital threats the Tibetan diaspora faces specifically. Ai-Men Lau from Doublethink Lab highlighted the enormous toll transnational repression takes on people’s mental health – and how scarce funding is for specialist support, as transnational repression continues to be framed through a national security lens, and not a human rights one.
Too often, online platforms become complicit in China’s tactics, as documented by ARTICLE 19’s forthcoming report on China’s transnational repression of global protest movements. In 2020, the US-based organisation Humanitarian China organised a Zoom meeting only to have its premium account blocked; Zoom subsequently confirmed it had done so following pressure from China. Ahead of the second anniversary of the White Paper Movement, in November 2024 prominent Chinese human rights account ‘Teacher Li is not Your Teacher’ was shadowbanned on X.
It is crucial that the digital rights community continues to push for greater commitments from companies so they don’t become willing servants and accomplices of China’s repressive efforts. The tech sector must increase efforts to work collaboratively with human rights organisations and impacted communities to develop policies and practices that directly address transnational repression, monitoring information threats, adopting privacy-enhancing features, streamlining cybersecurity protections and ensuring prompt support is available for anyone targeted by the tactics of repressive regimes.
Addressing disinformation and protecting information integrity
In our globalised world, where countries are highly interdependent and information flows freely across borders, comprehensive approaches to attacks on information integrity and large-scale disinformation campaigns are essential. Disinformation campaigns are on the rise, influencing elections, fueling polarisation, and discrediting activists who criticise authoritarian practices. So striking a delicate balance is key, a need to defend fair and pluralistic public debate while countering disinformation. Civil society and decision-makers must come together and build robust legal measures that protect free speech while safeguarding against manipulative narratives that distort reality.
The ‘Discourse, data, disinformation’ session set out key case studies highlighting the information landscape in Armenia, Moldova, and Serbia, while also offering a regional perspective from the European Union. There was ample discussion on the profound and increasing dangers stemming from Russian disinformation.
As Liliana Vițu, Head of Moldova’s Audiovisual Council, points out, Russia goes to great lengths to hinder or fully stop democratic reforms in countries it wants to keep under the Kremlin’s influence. Russia invests heavily in producing fake and manipulative content aimed at discrediting European Union integration while promoting its own model as the best path for a country’s development and prosperity. Russian propaganda is also set on exerting public perceptions of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, attempting to denigrate Ukraine and weaken international support for it.
In the case of Serbia, as explained by Raša Nedeljkov from the Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability, threats also come from within, as high-ranking politicians themselves propel manipulative narratives, amplify smears, and spread lies against their critics. This serves to divert difficult conversations – such as those concerning the quality of governance, controversial decisions, or corruption allegations – towards other topics. Furthermore, such tactics are often used to dismiss accusations against them as mere personal feuds or politically-motivated attacks.
Armenian lawyer Gevorg Hayrapetyan said protecting information integrity relied on a collaborative, multistakeholder approach built on trust, transparency, and legal safeguards. He cited good examples of proactive efforts to counter disinformation in Armenia, including from the Media Ethics Observatory – a self-regulatory body with over 80 member media organisations that monitor and document disinformation – and the national disinformation strategy, which was developed with strong civil society involvement.
Lutz Guellner, Head of the European Economic and Trade Office in Taiwan, emphasised the need for cross-regional cooperation and innovative approaches, integrating security, education, and digital policies to build resilience against disinformation across Europe. He pointed out that disinformation is increasingly difficult to debunk because malicious false narratives do not simply rely on blatant lies – they are often based on a grain of truth, which is twisted to create a plausible yet manipulative message. Like so many other experts speaking at RightsCon, Guellner made clear how crucial it is to challenge and counter manipulative tactics such as fake websites and undue content amplification.
The uncertain future – and the need for solidarity and resistance
This year’s RightsCon took place in the shadow of the funding freeze on foreign aid imposed by the US administration. The move has already caused widespread harm to civil society globally. As political instability increases, reactionary and isolationist tendencies take stronger hold, and governments and companies turn away from human rights language and framing, our global community faces an uncertain future. In this vacuum, authoritarian states, from China to Russia to and Iran, will seek to exploit and promote their own visions of global digital governance at odds with human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Despite those challenges, the summit once again showed that the digital rights community is strong, creative, and resilient. We are not about to give up. The conversations and connections started in Taipei will guide us as we look to strengthen solidarity, forge new pathways and collectively resist global attacks on our rights and freedoms.