Legal Demands
Published on July 28, 2022
Legal Demands
Published on July 28, 2022
02.
Overview
This section covers the latest data about third-party that compel X to remove content under our Country Withheld Content (“CWC”) policy.[1]
There are also details about the latest trends in global volumes of requests, , and the total . The total compliance rate is a simplified metric that combines all of X’s removal actions––, , and .
Some notable changes since the last report:
03.
Analysis
Big picture
X received 47,572 to remove content specifying 198,931 . This record-breaking number of accounts specified for content removal is now the largest ever that X has received since our first transparency report. The 10% increase in the total number of legal demands in this reporting period is another record-breaking number that makes this transparency report historically significant. It is noteworthy that during this time, X observed an increase of reports containing a substantial number of reported accounts (“batch reports”). Notably, we received batch reports from South Korea and the United Arab Emirates.
The South Korean government reported 966% more accounts compared to the previous transparency report. This number was influenced by seven batch reports submitted by Korean government agencies, who reported content alleged to be illegal under Article 44-7 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection. In total, X actioned 43,366 accounts for violations of the Platform manipulation and spam policy, Illegal or certain regulated goods or services, and Child sexual exploitation policies.
Along with South Korea, the United Arab Emirates submitted their first batch reports during this reporting period. The Telecommunications and Digital Government Regulatory Authority submitted 12 separate batch reports totaling 2,851 accounts citing crimes related to illegal sexual services. Many of these accounts were already suspended due to previous actions, however, X actioned 2,335 accounts in total, which were in violation mostly of the Platform manipulation and spam policy and Illegal or certain regulated goods or services policies.
Overall, X withheld or otherwise removed some or all of the reported content in response to 51% of global legal demands, down 5% from the previous reporting period.
Country insights
This record number of originated from 44 different countries during this reporting period, and included the first legal demand received from Ghana. X has received legal demands from 95 different countries since we published our first transparency report.
Top requesters
97% of the total global volume of legal demands originated from only five countries (in decreasing order): Japan, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, and India. These five countries have remained X’s top requesting countries for legal demands over the past three years.
Japan continues to submit the highest volume of requests, and was responsible for half of all global legal demands received in this period. 96% of requests from Japan referred to laws regarding the prohibition of financial crimes, narcotics, and prostitution. Russia submitted the second highest number of legal demands to X, accounting for 18% of all global legal demands. However, Russian requests decreased compared to the noticeable spike in the last transparency report. Content involving self-harm and suicide consisted of 70% of all Russian requests and has remained the primary issue-type reported by the Russian government. This is followed with 14% of Russian requests reporting child sexual exploitation and explicit media against minors. South Korea jumped to become the third largest requestor of legal demands, accounting for 12% of the global volume. In this reporting period, the South Korean government submitted their highest number of content removal requests ever. Turkey follows as the fourth largest requestor, accounting for 9% of global legal demands. India is the fifth highest requestor, accounting for 8% of global legal demands.
Verified journalists and news outlets
349 accounts of verified journalists and news outlets located around the world were subject to 326 , a 103% increase in the number of accounts since the previous reporting period and also the largest number of accounts specified by foreign and domestic governments that belong to verified journalists and news outlets we’ve ever seen. This spike is largely attributed to legal demands submitted by India (114), Turkey (78), Russia (55), and Pakistan (48). X also saw reports on verified journalists and news outlets from other jurisdictions, such as Brazil (8), Qatar (4), France (3), Israel (3), Mexico (3), Germany (2), South Korea (2), Thailand (2), Colombia (1), Indonesia (1), Serbia (1), and the United States (1).
There was a steady increase in actions taken on verified journalists and news outlets. In total, 17 posts from verified journalists and news outlets were in this reporting period compared to 11 posts withheld during the previous transparency report period.
Other Requests
X received its first Targeted Correction Direction (TCD) from the Singaporean government, citing the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). A correction direction was issued on the basis that the post misquoted a government official’s speech out of context. A correction label, along with the correction post provided to X by the Singaporean government, was issued to all X users that engaged with the reported post. For more information regarding this request, see here.
04.
Withheld Content
04.
Withheld Content
This data includes all legal demands where we employed our Country Withheld Content ("CWC") tool during this period, resulting in either or . Where permitted, X provided notice to identified account holders and published copies of the underlying that resulted in withheld content to Lumen for public review.[2]
We have now used CWC in 24 countries in response to legal demands: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. During this reporting period, X withheld content in Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates for the first time.
In total, X withheld content at the account or post level in 13 of those 24 countries during this period.
Examples (Lumen links to corresponding legal demands available below[3]):
05.
Restored Content
05.
Restored Content
Content is typically restored to X after a successful appeal of an original court order or because a legal procedure expired. Restored content, previously referred to as “un-withheld content”, may pertain to or prior to this current reporting period.
Examples (Lumen links to corresponding legal demands available below[4]):
06.
TOS Violations and Labeling
This section includes instances where, in response to identifying the or posts, content was removed from X after determining it violated X’s TOS.[5] We review all reported content for violations of X’s TOS before assessing it further independent of any underlying claims.
We take an objective approach to reviewing legal demands for possible violations of X’s TOS. The fact that the reporters in these cases may be involved in litigation, or may be government / law enforcement officials, had no bearing on whether any action was taken under X’s TOS. This approach is consistent with our commitment to free expression.
Examples:
07.
Majority no action
This section includes instances where, in response to a , no action was taken on the majority of the reported content, as most / were determined not to violate X's TOS or to merit withholding under CWC. Generally, we do not take action on newsworthy content or political speech protected under UN-recognized principles of free expression consistent with X values.
Examples:
Local Law(s)
Published on July 28, 2022
Local Law(s)
Published on July 28, 2022
02.
Overview
This section includes from and non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) identified by the European Commission.
There are also details about the latest trends in global volumes of requests, , total , , , and .
Some notable changes since the last report:
03.
Analysis
All reported content is first reviewed for potential violations of X's TOS. Any content that is found to be violating is removed from the platform. Content that does not violate X's TOS is then reviewed for potential withholding based on the local law(s) of the reporting jurisdiction.
Trusted reporters and NGOs
In April 2017, X allowlisted the first group of EU organizations as part of our continuing efforts under the EU Code of Conduct on Countering Hate Speech Online. Since then, several more organizations have joined the program. Broadly speaking, the organizations that submitted reports under the Code of Conduct work on protecting and furthering human rights, and preventing issues such as racism, xenophobia, or homophobia. X has formed partnerships with and NGOs from Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Austria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Ireland, Poland, Sweden, Croatia and Greece to date.
X received 45% fewer from trusted reporters and NGOs, impacting approximately 49% fewer accounts during this reporting period.
Examples (Lumen links to corresponding legal demands available below[6]):
Italy
X received a report from an Italian Trusted Reporter reporting one post for racism and abuse directed at a protected category group (PCG). The post used a derogatory term for black migrants but did not meet the threshold for removal under X’s Terms of Service. The post was therefore withheld in Italy per Italian law.
Latvia
One post was reported by a Latvian NGO for racial discrimination. The post shared a video of African migrants celebrating in the street and the user referred to the group using derogatory terms for African migrants. Therefore, it was withheld in Latvia.
Spain
X received a request from a Spanish Trusted Reporter reporting a post for incitement to hatred against the Muslim community. This post was withheld in Spain in compliance with local law(s).
04.
German Network Enforcement Act
04.
German Network Enforcement Act
The Network Enforcement Act (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, aka NEA) is a German law that came into effect on January 1, 2018.
X is required to publish a biannual report in German regarding our handling of complaints submitted from users or complaints bodies pursuant to the law. The most recent report was published in January 2022, covering the reporting period of July 1 to December 31, 2021, and is available to download from the Germany country report.
Footnotes
Some cases received during this reporting period may be in progress and may not be closed at the time of reporting.
Each request may identify multiple items to be removed. For example, a single request may ask us to remove individual posts, an entire account, or both.
We may not comply with every request or all aspects of a request for a variety of reasons. For example, we do not comply with requests that fail to identify content on X.
Legal Demands
2. Court orders are often accompanied by a non-disclosure order that prevents X for notifying a specified account holder.
Where permitted, X has published copies of removal requests to Lumen, at times redacted, that have resulted in content being withheld. We try to redact as little information as possible. Redacted information usually consists of personally identifiable information, but may also include defamatory statements or information that we are prohibited from publishing.
3. Withheld Content corresponding legal demands Lumen links:
5. “X’s TOS” is made up of X’s Terms of Service and the Our Rules. More information about Our Rules enforcement is available here.