Originally Published in 2024 on stratindeforum
The latest dispute
between X (formerly Twitter) and the Indian government has reached the court.
This one being the expletives used by the chatbot Grok integrated on X, with
the Ministry of Economics and Information Technology (MeitY) claiming it
violated the Information Technology Rules, 2021. Previously, in 2022, Indian
government issued an ultimatum to Twitter regarding the presence of anti-India contents
in the site, which the government considers as coordinated actions by enemy
intelligence agencies to sow division within the country. Subsequently, several
accounts were banned in the form of geo-block, and the accounts that spread
such content are no longer accessible within India. Similarly, X has complied
with the local laws in a number of countries while fighting out some others as
well. The most infamous one being Brazil, in which Brazil’s top court
threatened to ban the platform in the country.
The question
widely asked regarding the actions at X, and broadly in the context of social
media, is where the line is drawn between freedom of speech the social media
platform purports to uphold and the national laws any company has to follow in
order to be able to operate within that country. Especially, in a country like
India which is susceptible to communal tensions powered by disinformation and
fake news on the social media. It is augmented by the fact that about 50% of
the population in India rely on social media for news, according to the Digital
News Report 2024 by Reuters Institute.
There is no comprehensive
international law governing social media and its censorship. It’s largely at
the discretion of a company to decide what is and what is not allowed on the
platform. At the same time, how the censorship is done by a social media
company is subject to discussion, as these companies are mostly governed by the
laws in the country they are founded or headquartered in. In the case of X, the
United States. Mostly, the censorship of illegal content is greatly enforced by
the platforms themselves emphasizing on children, minorities and general
decency. Importantly, the social media companies are not licensed to purvey any
ideology the home country supports or they themselves think appropriate. If the platforms did so
openly, they would be facing greater criticism in many countries than they do
currently.
The key factor is how content moderation is done on social media platforms. Not very long ago, after having been bought by the billionaire Elon Musk, Twitter files were released by the new management between 2022 and 2023. It revealed a number of concerning findings. They include direct government involvement in censoring the accounts in the United States, including those catering to and operating in different countries. These actions were directly requested by the law enforcement agencies within the US itself. Similar decisions were taken in other social media platforms banning a number of media accounts from different countries operating in India. It is debatable whether these companies conduct moderation fairly. If not, at the end of the day, complying with the local demands in a country makes little difference. The question of suppression of minority, political and oppositional voices through censorship is definitely there, though. These concerns show how fragile and challenging social media regulation can be.
Laws in India
and Other Countries
India’s
social media censorship has not been without its controversies. Back in 2022, Twitter
faced a difficult choice of either shutting down its services in India or
complying with India’s demands, after being ordered to remove multiple accounts
for violating the local laws. Twitter chose the latter. In India, a number of
laws allow for strict online regulation, thanks to the vague formulation of the
laws giving flexible interpretations, especially in the context of national
security and public order. For example, multiple sections in the Information
Technologies Act 2000 and the UAPA Act. Famously, in 2015, the Supreme Court of
India struck down the section 66A of the IT Act, deeming it as a violation of
freedom of speech. The specific section allowed posting “offensive” content on
social media punishable by jail.
Not just India and the US, a majority of countries have such strict online laws. For example, Germany’s Network Enforcement Law (NetzDG) imposes exorbitant fines if a social media company refuses to remove flagged content. Of late, many countries, by law, necessitate the big social media companies to appoint a local representative who will be tasked with accepting government requests regarding content moderation and ensuring compliance with local laws. It enables governments to have increased leverage on the companies.
Way Forward
Given the complexities involved in the regulation and censorship of the online content, especially on mass social media, it’d make much more sense if a third-party regulatory agency devoid of political influence is established. The current fact checking mechanisms in place, both by government and third parties, to some extent, combat the deliberately altered and misattributed information on the internet. Their effectiveness stays strictly within the purview of fact checkers. The social media companies have no other choice but to follow the local laws; however, the process is difficult and often results in them becoming partners in government censorship and crackdowns directed at political opposition.
Furthermore, the algorithms that flag and promote content in seconds require transparency. Any platform determining content visibility has a fundamental responsibility to explain its methods. This issue is more significant than it appears; these systems can undermine democratic processes and influence elections, as they may already have. These algorithms should undergo constant review, with the results made available to the general public. Now that government goes along with decision to keep the data within India itself, with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), it would not be difficult to enforce the new changes regarding algorithms. It may sound far-fetched but the overreach of the social media platforms regarding what and how much one should see is a significant factor that the governments around the world would have to consider sooner or later, and it stems from the reality that the social media platforms, being self-regulating entities, are not very effective in regulating themselves. And the governments can do only so much to enforce it. So, every sovereign nation would prefer to regulate social media themselves rather than relying on the laws of a different nation to do it for them. It may not a wise choice. And it is exacerbated by the fact that an international law standardizing various social media regulations is still a distant reality.
