Risk Mitigation For Designation Lists

As shown in the “Global Definitions of Terrorism” map, there is no universally agreed-upon definition of terrorism or violent extremism. Accordingly, tech companies rely on a number of sources to remain compliant with legal obligations and to assess whether a piece of content is terrorist or violent extremist in nature, or whether a user is themselves a terrorist or violent extremist. These sources may include government designation lists, national and international laws, and conceptual frameworks that involve dynamic behavioral factors. For more information on these sources, see the GIFCT Year 3 Legal Frameworks Working Group’s animated explainer.

The following resource is intended to provide initial guidance and case studies related to government designation lists. While the current section discusses some of the pros, cons, and risk mitigation strategies that tech companies and other practitioners may consider when referencing government designation lists, we encourage you to read more about the national and international laws that regulate terrorist and violent extremist content in our Legislation section.

Benefits of Designation Lists

Using national and/or international terrorist designation lists is often a tech company’s first step to ensure legal compliance and safety due diligence in taking action against terrorist and violent extremist content online. Benefits include: 

• Legal Grounding: GIFCT Member companies must have terms of service, community guidelines, or other publicly available policies that explicitly prohibit terrorist and/or violent extremist activity. Terror Designation Lists provide a legal rationale for why a company might take action on content or activities for certain groups or individuals under their policies. More broadly, when a terrorist group or individual is added to a government designation list, they immediately face the full legal consequences that exist under the designating framework. 

• International Accountability: Terrorist Designation Lists enable international bodies to hold governments to account. In cases of abuse and/or misuse of designation lists, terrorist designation lists can serve as reference points for bodies such as the UN to hold governments accountable for their actions. This provides actors who plan on consulting particular lists with an added layer of protection.

• Informed Decisions: Designation lists support tech company Trust & Safety teams, including those with limited resources, in deciding whether a piece of content is terrorist or violent extremist in nature. In situations  when companies are acting under crisis response frameworks, these informed decisions enable them to action content and prevent secondary harms at speed. 

Drawbacks of Designation Lists

Terrorist designation lists can also present challenges for tech companies and other practitioners who may rely on these sources to inform their counterterrorism policies and actions. These challenges include:

• Terrorist designation lists may be used as (geo)political tools by countries in conflict: Governments may use the addition of particular groups or individuals as a tool to make a political statement in the international arena. There are cases where governments have added activist networks, journalists, opposition parties, and even tech companies to “terrorist” or “extremist” designation lists as a means to suppress or retaliate against government opposition. As a result, designations can sometimes be seen as a performative act. This can be burdensome for actors who reference particular lists, as it requires them to undertake their own investigation of the larger political contexts in which additions are made. 

• Terrorist designation lists may be utilized to suppress human rights and political dissent: In some instances, designation lists have been used as a tool to suppress groups and individuals that do not align with a government’s political objectives. This can be challenging for tech companies and other stakeholders seeking to apply designation lists with global parity as reference points for policy application. 

• Terrorist designation lists may reflect national biases: In a post 9/11 international context, designation lists have often focused on Islamist extremist terrorist groups and individuals without covering the broader spectrum of threats - including white supremacist, ethno-nationalist, and nihilistic violent extremism. If practitioners solely rely on designation lists, their ability to understand and effectively counter the terrorist and violent extremist threat will be diminished. 

• Terror Designation Lists are often unclear about designation and removal processes: Many governments are not transparent about the criteria and processes involved in adding groups onto or removing groups from terror designation lists. 

Risk Mitigation Strategies When Utilizing Designation Lists

As the previous section demonstrates, tech companies and other stakeholders should be cautious and exercise oversight when applying national and international designation lists to their policies and operations, and when applying these tools to support them. Given the benefits that can be gained from applying terrorist designation lists, it is important to consider a number of tactics and risk mitigation strategies to minimize the impact of the drawbacks outlined above. These strategies include:

• Prioritize using lists with transparent processes and methodologies: Stakeholders should focus on designation lists that clearly articulate the specific criteria organizations or individuals must meet to be eligible for inclusion. Additionally, the lists should clearly state enforcement mechanisms and detail agencies and organizations responsible for prosecuting criminal and/or terrorist activity.

• Cross-reference or combine country lists alongside intergovernmental lists: intergovernmental bodies (such as the U.N.) produce lists that generally require an extensive process of multilateral negotiations and agreement. These negotiations may counteract political weaponization of designations, minimize the national biases, and ensure lists are applicable across broader geographies and threat contexts.   

• Center human rights when utilizing and applying terror designation lists: As previously noted, terror designation lists can be used as tools to silence dissenting voices, oppress the press, and block grassroots activism in many parts of the world. To mitigate potential negative human rights impacts, it is important to consider the context in which a particular list is created and, as mentioned in the previous two suggestions, to use lists with transparent criteria that have been collaboratively developed.

GIFCT does not create definitions of, or legislation on, terrorism or violent extremism, nor does it advise member platforms on how they should or should not designate certain groups or actors.