Proposal

APrIGF 2026 Session Proposal Submission Form
Part 1 - Lead Organizer
Contact Person
Mr. Nilay Shah
Email
Organization / Affiliation (Please state "Individual" if appropriate) *
Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in)
Designation
Volunteer Legal Counsel
Gender
Male
Economy of Residence
India
Stakeholder Group
Civil Society
Part 2 - Session Proposal
Session Title
Appealing Hate Speech- Using the Grievance Appellate Committee to Hold Platforms Accountable
Thematic Track of Your Session

  • Option

    • Primary: Digital Resilience and Building of Trust
    • Secondary: Not necessary
Session Format
Lightning Talk (20 minutes)
Where do you plan to organize your session?
Offsite from the venue at a local hub (with online moderator for questions and comments from remote participants)
Specific Issues for Discussion
In India and the world over, Big Tech has waged war against the global efforts to regulate platforms. Meta in 2025 rolled back its fact checking unit in the United States and also made sweeping changes to its “Harmful Conduct” community standards. X has seen unprecedented levels of hate speech engagement, with persistent year on year increases since 2022. Efforts by Governments to enforce regulation have met either silence, as was the case with Nepal, or reluctant acquiescence, as with India.
A collateral of this tussle has been the exponential increase in unchecked hate speech, that is platformed for vague reasons of free speech, political pressure, or sheer disregard on the part of platforms. 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.
One of the was that we have worked to counter the same is by leveraging internal grievance redressal mechanisms, and government bodies such as the Grievance Appellate Committee in India, an online forum for users to appeal decisions issued by Grievance Officers of intermediaries. The GAC is staffed by Members appointed by the Central Government. Decisions by the GAC are binding on platforms.
SFLC.in has filed upward of 60 appeals at the GAC, focusing on hate speech, and our successes and challenges provide a good model for other jurisdictions to consider. So far, we have successfully appealed the takedown of 20 pieces of content, challenged a further 3 at the High Court Level, and through our analysis, ideated an alternative model for what a good Appellate Authority should look like. Replicating such a model would provide citizens access to a more trustworthy, safe, and resilient internet- and a method to hold platforms accountable in the current system of asymmetric power imbalances.
Describe the Relevance of Your Session to APrIGF
The session falls squarely under the theme of building digital resilience, with a focus on platform accountability and governance.
Practices such as the GAC mechanism in India, the DSA appeals mechanism, and the Oversight Board mechanism help build digital resilience, particularly in a time when holding platforms accountable seems increasingly out of reach. Our experience with the GAC particularly will help CSOs grapple with the question of platform accountability and hate speech through what is a unique approach, leveraging both private and public modes of redressal to counter hate speech online.
An expected outcome for this session is for organizations working in South Asia to grapple with questions of intermediary liability. The so called "Delhi Effect" has resulted in Bangladesh for example transplanting Indian laws without considering the ill effects of the same. By highlighting our practical experience, we aim to ensure that laws modeled along the lines of India's intermediary liability regime do not suffer the same pitfalls.
The internet is also a global landscape. We have in our experience noticed that using the GAC mechanism is often helpful to take down hate speech not just within India, but globally. Experience with its working could therefore help CSOs action hate speech in their jurisdictions through partnerships with us, particularly when their countries have more lax intermediary liability provisions.
Methodology / Agenda (Please add rows by clicking "+" on the right)
Time frame (e.g. 5 minutes, 20 minutes, should add up to the time limit of your selected session format) Description
15 minutes Discussion of the hate speech problem, and our efforts to counter it with successes and failures
5 minutes Audience interaction, questions, suggestions
Moderators & Speakers Info (Please complete where possible) - (Required)

  • Moderator (Primary)

    • Stakeholder Group: Select One
    • Expected Presence: Select One
    • Status of Confirmation: Select One

  • Moderator (Facilitator)

    • Stakeholder Group: Select One
    • Expected Presence: Select One
    • Status of Confirmation: Select One

  • Speaker 1

    • Name: Nilay Shah
    • Organization: SFLC.in
    • Designation: Volunteer Legal Counsel
    • Gender: Cis man
    • Economy / Country of Residence: India
    • Stakeholder Group: Civil Society
    • Expected Presence: In-person
    • Status of Confirmation: Proposed
    • Link of Bio (URL only): https://in.linkedin.com/in/nilay-shah-6b226117b

  • Speaker 2

    • Stakeholder Group: Select One
    • Expected Presence: Select One
    • Status of Confirmation: Select One

  • Speaker 3

    • Stakeholder Group: Select One
    • Expected Presence: Select One
    • Status of Confirmation: Select One

  • Speaker 4

    • Stakeholder Group: Select One
    • Expected Presence: Select One
    • Status of Confirmation: Select One

  • Speaker 5

    • Stakeholder Group: Select One
    • Expected Presence: Select One
    • Status of Confirmation: Select One
Please explain the rationale for choosing each of the above contributors to the session.
I, Nilay Shah, have worked extensively on platform accountability, particularly on the GAC mechanism in India. I have filed upwards of 70 GAC appeals, reviewed and analysed decisions, and written about the pitfalls, successes, and changes required.
Additionally, I have also filed a petition before the High Court of Kerala on the same.
Has AI been used to develop this proposal?
No
Please declare if you have any potential conflict of interest with the Program Committee 2026.
No
Are you or other session contributors planning to apply for the APrIGF Fellowship Program 2026?
No
Upon evaluation by the Program Committee, your session proposal may only be selected under the condition that you will accept the suggestion of merging with another proposal with similar topics. Please state your preference below:
Yes, I am willing to work with another session proposer on a suggested merger.
APrIGF offers live transcripts in English for all sessions. Do you need any disability related requirements for your session? APrIGF makes every effort to be a fully inclusive and accessible event, and will do the best to fulfill your needs.
None, thank you
Number of Attendees (Please fill in numbers)
    Gender Balance in Moderators/Speakers (Please fill in numbers)
      Consent
      I agree that my data can be submitted to forms.for.asia and processed by APrIGF organizers for the program selection of APrIGF 2026.