Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression; to seek, receive and impart information through any media
Necessary
Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes. Others must also act.
Why shareholder democracy is necessary
Whether people can seek, receive and share information now runs substantially through a handful of platform companies. Meta, Alphabet (Google and YouTube) and X set the rules for content moderation, decide what their algorithms amplify, and choose whether to comply with government takedown and surveillance demands in markets from Vietnam to Turkey. A long shareholder-resolution record, from Arjuna Capital's 2018 hate-speech and fake-news proposals at Facebook and Twitter to Open MIC's 2024 push on generative-AI misinformation, shows investors treating this as a governance question with real votes behind it. Google's 2019 abandonment of its censored China search project followed sustained shareholder and employee pressure. Still, the deepest threats to expression sit mostly outside any boardroom: government censorship, internet shutdowns and violence against journalists. That keeps corporate political spending a secondary rather than primary obstacle to reform.
How this was scoredNecessary
Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes. Others must also act.
Platform content moderation, algorithmic amplification and compliance with takedown demands materially shape who can speak and be heard online, but state censorship, network shutdowns and the conditions journalists work under sit outside any company's control, so corporate conduct is a necessary rather than sufficient lever.
Big Tech lobbying against transparency and platform-safety rules narrows outcomes at the margins, but authoritarian governments and state censors, not corporate political spending, are the primary obstacle to free expression worldwide.
2 and 1, higher of the two, gives Necessary
Every rating is the higher of two answers, one for what companies do and one for what they spend to stop the outcome, because the same vote reaches both. See the full method.
Sources
- NYS Common, Arjuna Capital Push for Facebook, Twitter Content Governance, Chief Investment Officer (ai-cio.com), 2018-01-12
- Google shareholder files petition with Alphabet to evaluate potential impact of 'Project Dragonfly' on investors, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2018-12
- Anti-ESG Shareholder Proposals in 2023, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 2023-06-01
- Current Campaigns: Holding Big Tech Accountable, Open MIC, 2024-2026
- Ranking Digital Rights 2022 Big Tech Scorecard evaluates 14 major digital platforms on privacy and free expression, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2022
What civil society organizations are helping owners on this
Led the first shareholder resolutions at Facebook and Twitter on hate speech, fake news and sexual harassment content policy (2018), and later proposals at Meta on metaverse user risk.
Filed 2024 shareholder proposals at Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft asking for reports on generative-AI misinformation and disinformation risk.
Notice of Exempt Solicitation Pursuant to Rule 14a-103, SEC EDGAR filing, 2023
Filed shareholder proposals at Alphabet asking for disclosure of government content-removal requests (2022) and of vulnerabilities in enforcement of platform terms of service tied to election interference and free expression (2023).
Anti-ESG Shareholder Proposals in 2023, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 2023-06-01
Publishes the Big Tech Scorecard rating platform companies on free-expression and privacy practices, used by ESG investors to inform engagement.
5 campaigns on record
Issue a report on the material risk that the company's generative AI technology facilitates misinformation and disinformation.
Result: At Microsoft's 2024 meeting, over 21% of shareholders voted in favor; Meta and Alphabet saw 53.6% and 45.7% support respectively among independent (non-insider) shares, though dual-class structures kept the measures from passing at either company.
we found no documented policy change at any of the three companies following these votes
Report on vulnerabilities in Google's and YouTube's enforcement of their terms of service, covering risks from election interference, restrictions on free expression, and inequitable application of policy.
Result: We found no documented vote result for this specific proposal in the sources reviewed.
we found no documented change to Alphabet's content-enforcement practices, and NLPC's related China-themed proposals that season drew roughly 7% support or less
Anti-ESG Shareholder Proposals in 2023, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance
Commission a third-party assessment of user risks in the metaverse and hold an advisory shareholder vote on the findings.
Result: Filed December 2021.
we found no documented change resulting from this proposal
Publish a report evaluating the human-rights, legal and financial risk to investors of launching a censored search engine in China (Project Dragonfly).
Result: Petition filed December 2018; Google confirmed termination of Project Dragonfly in July 2019.
Alphabet shelved Project Dragonfly, though the termination followed broad employee and public pressure as well as the shareholder petition, so the shareholder filing's independent causal role is not established
Publish transparency reports on how the platforms address sexual harassment, hate speech and fake news, and what they do to enforce their own terms of service.
With New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, Illinois State Treasurer Michael Frerichs, Baldwin Brothers Inc., Harrington Investments
Result: First-ever resolutions of this kind filed at both companies in January 2018.
we found no documented change to Facebook's or Twitter's content policies attributable specifically to this filing
Press Release: Twitter and Facebook Face First-Ever Shareholder Resolutions, Arjuna Capital
Related subjects on other maps
How this rating was made
Every item on every one of our maps is read against one question: how far does this depend on the people who own companies voting their values? We answer it twice, once for what companies do and once for what they spend to stop the outcome, and take whichever answer is higher, since the same vote reaches both. The score carries its reasoning and its sources so that a reader can check it rather than take it.
- Pivotal. Owners voting their values can deliver most of the outcome.
- Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes, and others must also act.
- Helpful. Owners voting their values help, and others carry most of it.
- Independent. This moves without owners. Other levers carry it.
The advocacy record on this page holds only what a source we opened says happened. Where we searched and found nothing, the page says so rather than leaving a silence. Where a campaign names a filer the source does not name, it says that too. Ratings are ours; the list of subjects is Universal Declaration of Human Rights's, and we link to their original.
How we score dependency, in full.