💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Social Media Networks & Internal Security

  • IT Rules Amendments: Government the Sole Arbiter of Truth

    Central Idea

    • The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has created powers to determine fake or false or misleading internet content about any business of the Central Government, which is inspired by George Orwell’s novel 1984 and its concept of Newspeak. While the government claims that these changes are for an Open, Safe & Trusted and Accountable Internet, this claim is questionable, and their impact on natural justice, transparency, and trust in government.

    What is mean by Fake news?

    • Fake news refers to intentionally fabricated or misleading information presented as if it were real news. It can be spread through traditional media sources like newspapers or television, but it is more commonly associated with social media platforms and other online sources.
    • Fake news can range from completely made-up stories to misleading headlines and selectively edited or out-of-context information designed to deceive readers.
    • It is often used for political purposes, to manipulate public opinion or to spread misinformation about individuals, organizations or events.

    What makes Government’s claim questionable?

    1. No safeguards for natural justice

    • Against the principle of natural justice: The IT Amendment Rules, 2023, contain powers that allow the government to act as a judge in its own case. This goes against the principles of natural justice, where a transparent process with a fair chance of hearing and a legal order is essential.
    • Government censorship: The absence of such safeguards in the IT Rules could result in government censorship, where press releases and tweets by the government may rally citizens to its cause without providing legal reasoning or the remedy of a legal challenge.

    2. Government censorship in the name of safety

    • Swift take-down of the content: With the new powers, the determination of fake or false or misleading information by a fact-checking unit of the Central Government will result in a swift take-down of the content, making it inaccessible not only on social media but also on the news portal’s website.
    • Prevents critical understanding: This will prevent readers from developing a critical understanding of facts, which is a natural outcome of a democratic system. Thus, the IT Rules undermine the administration of justice and assume that the executive alone knows what is best for the citizen.

    3. Lack of details on fact-checking body composition

    • Lack of details and autonomy of the fact checking body: For a trusted internet, the fact-checking body’s composition and design of regulatory institutions are important. When these bodies are not insulated or formed with financial and functional autonomy, they become subservient to government and political interests. This undermines the basis of trust in government built through scrutiny.
    • Government the sole arbiter of truth: The present system makes the Union Government the sole arbiter of truth, leaving citizens with little choice but to trust the government.

    The basis of accountability

    • Accountability requires remedial actions that are neither an artificial measure of placation nor a disproportionate or aggressive penalty.
    • The IT Rules target institutions that work towards accountability, making it difficult to achieve its purpose.
    • The mission of journalists is to report facts and speak truth to power, and the slogan Open, Safe & Trusted and Accountable Internet means little in a Digital India, where Newspeak-like rules prevent the free exchange of information.

    Conclusion

    • IT Rules of 2023, inspired by Orwell’s Newspeak, could lead to government censorship, lack of natural justice, and trust in government. The government needs to provide transparency, impartiality, and accountability in the regulatory institutions’ design to build trust among citizens. Instead of relying on a fact-checking unit of the Central Government, it is essential to establish independent regulatory bodies with financial and functional autonomy to promote a truly open, safe, and trusted internet.

  • India Must Take Khalistan Extremism Seriously and Address The Root Causes

    Central Idea

    • The resurgence of Sikh extremism in the form of the self-styled Sikh extremist preacher Amritpal Singh, modelling himself on Bhindranwale of yore, has raised concerns in areas with a significant Sikh diaspora. The real cause for concern is that the current security dispensation has not learnt from past mistakes and needs to take appropriate action before the situation spirals out of control.

    Background: Bhindranwale Phenomenon

    • The resemblance of the self-styled Sikh extremist preacher, Amritpal Singh, to Bhindranwale is limited to style and lacks substance.
    • However, the extremist fringe among Sikh youth, including the Sikh diaspora in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US, seems to be galvanized by the imposter’s attempts to revive the Bhindranwale mystique.
    • The links have been established by this ‘core group’ with pro-Khalistan groups such as the Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), the Babbar Khasla, and the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF).

    Lessons from the Past

    • Inadequate current security dispensation: The current security dispensation does not appear to have learnt the right lessons from past mistakes.
    • Operation Blue Star: The Bhindranwale phenomenon was not a sudden development, and if it were properly handled, it could have been checkmated well before 1984, and the subsequent violence leading to ‘Operation Blue Star’ and the damage caused to Akal Takht could have been avoided.

    What was the Khalistan movement?

    • Dates to pre-independence era: The Khalistan movement, which started in the 1940s during British rule, calls for establishing a separate nation for Sikhs. When India became independent and Punjab was partitioned, its leaders demanded a special status for the state. However, the Central Government did not pay attention to these demands, and Sikhs felt betrayed, leading to the idea of a separate nation growing substantially.
    • Rise of Bhindranwale: Many individuals and organizations contributed to the Sikh revivalist movement; however, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale emerged as a charismatic leader after becoming the head of Damdami Taksal on August 25, 1977.
    • Failure to fulfil regional demand: Punjabi political parties, such as the Sikh Akali Party, failed to fulfil the regional demands concerning river waters and the transfer of Chandigarh as a capital city to Punjab. The devolution of power gave rise to Bhindranwale’s image among the masses.
    • Finally Military Operation: The military mission, OBS, was carried out between June 1 to June 10, 1984, to take control of key gurdwaras, including the Golden Temple in Amritsar, from Bhindranwale’s supporters. Bhindranwale was killed during the operation; however, in recent times, his image remains alive and well.

    Why is it being revived?

    • Political instability: Punjab in recent years has witnessed a political crisis leading to a change in governments, ruling political parties and CM’s giving chance for radical outfits to grow.
    • Economic challenges: Punjab state has a high employment rate (According to data from the Centre’s Periodic Labour Force Survey 2019-20, Punjab’s unemployment rate is higher than the national average). Also, the year-long Farmers’ protest in 2021 and railways blockades have led to the creation of negative sentiments among investors about the state’s investment environment leading to decreasing investments in Punjab and rising unemployment.
    • Rising communalism: multiple events of blasphemy have taken place in the state which is flaming the fire of communalism among the people of the state.
    • Provocation from Pakistan: Investigations by security agencies suggest links between Khalistani groups and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – further increasing the likelihood of feelings of separatism due to drug trafficking and networking through Sikh pilgrimages.
    • Feeling to of persecuted minority: images of the 1984 anti-sikh riots and the topic of the non-persecution of culprits of the riots are being used to suggest that Sikhs are persecuted minority and thus they must have their own land in form of Khalistan.

    Cause of concern

    • Threat to national security and integrity: the resurgence of the Khalistan movement is a threat to national security similar to the Kashmir and NE insurgency.
    • May darken Punjab’s future: a poor law and order situation may deter investors to invest in Punjab thus further deteriorating its economy and leading to spillover effects in social and political sectors.
    • Involvement of diaspora: The idea of forming a separate state for Sikhs has died down in Punjab; however, it has attracted the attention of a large audience in the diaspora who now have settled in other nations for long and thus have lost their affinity with India as their homeland.
    • Misuse of social media: which defies any international boundary, thus misused by separatists in Pakistan and other nations.
    • Bilateral relations may be harmed: the Khalistan issue has already harmed Indo- Canada relations and now straining Indo-UK due to the conduction of Referendum 2020 in these countries despite the Indian Government’s objection.

    Avoiding Misreading of Sentiments

    • Wider perspective: Treating all that is happening now as evidence of a foreign conspiracy instead of facing up to the reality that this may be more than a mere emotional outburst of the Sikh extremist fringe is a grave mistake.
    • Finding the real cause: Blaming the current violence on the drug mafia with links to Pakistan can at best be a proximate, but not the real cause.

    Confronting the Threat

    • Innovative ways: India needs to find ways and means to defeat the ‘siren call’ of radical extremists of every hue, whether they be Khalistanis or other kinds of extremists.
    • Ensure balance and sense of unity: It needs to steer between the extremes of the right and left and ensure a greater sense of unity within the country, according to individual dignity and human progress, and demonstrating leadership in the comity of nations.

    Way ahead

    • The resurgence of Sikh extremism and the growing insecurity among Sikh youth and discontent prevailing among the Sikh peasantry needs to be addressed to prevent a repeat of the violent events that took place in the late 1970s to the 1990s.
    • Intelligence analysis should be prioritized to detect the signs of growing insecurity and discontent.
    • There is need for good intelligence to deal with the situation.

    Conclusion

    • India should not yield to the temptation of resorting to hard measures without understanding the true causes and join the ranks of nations that solely believe in strong-arm methods. India needs to effectively confront the threat posed by radical extremists, such as the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) and the Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), while respecting liberal values and ensuring unity within the country.

  • Fake News: Addition of The Provision In Intermediary Guidelines

    Fake News

    Central Idea

    • The addition of the fake news provision in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (Intermediary Guidelines) must be seen in the context of protecting fundamental rights while combatting fake news. The recent addition by the central government clearly militates against settled law and the Constitution.

    What is mean by Fake news?

    • Fake news refers to intentionally fabricated or misleading information presented as if it were real news. It can be spread through traditional media sources like newspapers or television, but it is more commonly associated with social media platforms and other online sources.
    • Fake news can range from completely made-up stories to misleading headlines and selectively edited or out-of-context information designed to deceive readers.
    • It is often used for political purposes, to manipulate public opinion or to spread misinformation about individuals, organizations or events.

    Fake News

    Existing Provisions to Combat Fake News

    • Intermediary Guidelines of 2021: The most preferred democratic process to combat the threats and impact of fake news on a polity would be through Parliament-enacted laws. India opted for the speedier alternative of an addition to the Intermediary Guidelines of 2021 (as amended), through Rule 3(1)(v).
    • Can not disseminate misleading content: Under this rule, intermediaries including social media platforms have to ensure that users do not disseminate content that deceives or misleads on the origin or knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact.

    Remedies Available

    • Complaints and grievance: Any complaints from users, government, or court have to be actioned by the grievance officer of an intermediary, including social media platforms, within 15 days. This timeframe for actioning a complaint for complaints of false or misleading news is reduced to 72 hours.
    • Resolution: The next step for resolution is provided through the Grievance Appellate Committees, which the government recently announced appointments for.
    • Other actions: These remedies are independent of and in addition to the remedies available in law for a government agency to seek takedowns or blocking, as per due process or for courts to decide thereon.

    Fake News

    Critique of the Addition

    • Provisions already exists: The recent addition of a separate category for restraint on dissemination by users of content in respect of any business of the Central Government is unwarranted as provisions already exist. The restraint is on users and not intermediaries, as misconceived by many. The onus on intermediaries is only of reasonable effort.
    • No transparency: With merely a central government-authorised fact check unit saying so, content could be classified as fake, false or misleading and a takedown and action necessitated, without even a semblance of due process.
    • No legitimacy: In the present instance, there is an absolute absence of legitimate aim for this additional restriction on users and an abject lack of procedures that would assure due process.

    Reaffirming the Need for Legitimacy

    • The recent addition clearly militates against settled law and the Constitution: The Supreme Court in Puttaswamy judgment reaffirmed the need for legitimacy, supported by parliament enacted laws, which are proportionate to meet the test of constitutionality.
    • Media One case: Supreme Court’s recent judgment in the Media One case (Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, April 5, 2023) reiterates that any law or regulation inconsistent with fundamental rights is void. This judgment also reaffirms the four principles that will decide the constitutionality of a law or regulation: (i) unreasonableness or irrationality; (ii) illegality; and (iii) procedural impropriety.

    Fake News

    Some of the dangers of fake news

    • Inciting communal violence: In India, fake news has been known to incite communal violence. For instance, the spread of fake news on social media was one of the factors behind the Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013.
    • Undermining public trust: Fake news can undermine public trust in institutions and the media. This can have serious consequences for democracy and social cohesion.
    • Impact on health: Fake news about health issues can have serious consequences. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, fake news about remedies and cures for the disease led to people consuming dangerous substances.
    • Misinformation during elections: Fake news can also be used to spread misinformation during elections, which can influence voters and distort the democratic process.
    • Economic harm: Fake news can cause economic harm by spreading false information about businesses, leading to loss of investor confidence and financial losses.
    • Spreading rumors: Fake news can also be used to spread rumors about individuals, which can have serious consequences, such as the recent case of fake news leading to the lynching of two men in Assam.

    Conclusion

    • The recent addition is unsustainable and unwarranted as provisions already exist. The fight should be for the protection of fundamental rights that are essential to our very existence.

  • Internet Shutdowns in India: A Growing Concern

    Central Idea

    • Earlier this month, the Punjab government suspended mobile internet and SMS services for more than four days as it launched an operation to arrest a pro-Khalistani preacher. This is not an isolated incident in India, with the country recording the highest number of internet shutdowns in the world.

    Internet shutdowns in the world

    • India has recorded the highest number of internet shutdowns in the world.
    • Such shutdowns are never or almost never implemented in most parts of Europe, North and South America, and Oceania, while they are rampant in Africa and Asia.

    State-wise Instances of Internet Shutdowns

    • Punjab: The Software Freedom Law Center has recorded eight such shutdowns in Punjab alone.
    • Southern states: Southern states, on the other hand, have only recorded six such shutdowns in the same period, with no instance of internet shutdown in Kerala.
    • Northern states: Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh have recorded the highest number of internet shutdowns in India.

    Absence of Centralised Data

    • Absence of data: The Central government does not collate data on internet shutdowns imposed by state governments, which was strongly recommended by the Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology.
    • Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology: The Committee came down heavily on the use of internet shutdowns as a substitute for enforcing law and order and wanted the reasons, duration, decision of the competent authority and of the review committees to be noted for every internet shutdown, and for the information to be made public.

    Need for Internet Shutdowns

    • Civil unrest: Internet serves as a medium for the transmission of information through pictures, videos and text that have the potential to cause civil unrest and exacerbate the law and order.
    • Fake news: Shutdowns in order to block the flow of information about government actions or to end communication among activists and prevent the spread of rumors and fake news.
    • Rumors: Shutdown helps prevent the “spreading of rumors and misinformation using social media platforms which can hinder peace and law and order”.
    • Preventive Response: Cutting off the Internet is both an early and preventive response to block restive groups to organize riots against the Government.
    • National Interest: The Internet cannot be independent of national sovereignty. Therefore, the necessary regulation of the internet is a reasonable choice of sovereign countries based on national interests.

    Costs of Internet Shutdowns

    • Education: Shutdowns also impact education, as students and teachers are unable to access online learning materials and tools. This can lead to a disruption of education and a negative impact on academic performance.
    • For instance: A UN report noted that in Kashmir, long-standing restrictions on connectivity undermined the education of students relying on remote education,
    • Economy: Businesses that rely on the internet to operate may suffer significant financial losses during shutdowns. This is particularly true for online retailers, e-commerce platforms, and other digital service providers.
    • For instance: A 2018 paper estimated that India lost around $3 billion between 2012 and 2017 due to shutdowns.
    • Health: The internet plays a critical role in disseminating health information and enabling telemedicine. Shutdowns can make it difficult for people to access vital health information or receive medical care.
    • Communication: Internet shutdowns severely limit people’s ability to communicate with one another, both within the affected region and with the rest of the world. This can make it difficult to coordinate protests or other forms of social and political activism, as well as to stay in touch with friends and family members.
    • Human rights: Internet shutdowns violate people’s human rights, including freedom of expression and access to information. They can also hinder the ability of journalists and activists to report on human rights abuses.
    • Politics: Shutdowns can be used to suppress political opposition and prevent dissent. This is particularly true during elections or times of political unrest, where the government may seek to limit the spread of information that could be used against them.

    Mains Question

    Q. What are the reasons behind the high number of internet shutdowns in India also discuss socio economic impact of such shutdowns.

    Conclusion

    • Internet shutdowns in India are a growing concern, with a significant impact on education, healthcare, and the economy. However, the government has no mechanism to assess the socioeconomic impact of internet shutdowns. It is also important to consider the principle of proportionality and the socioeconomic impact of such shutdowns while enforcing law and order.
    Are you an IAS Worthy Aspirant? Get a reality check with the All India Smash UPSC Scholarship Test

    Get upto 100% Scholarship | 900 Registration till now | Only 100 Slots Left

     

  • Need to ensure that the digital gateways do not become gatekeepers of services

    digital

    Context

    • The ease of living enabled by digital technologies has turned digital innovations into essential services for the common public. Considered a novelty earlier, the internet has become a necessity for most day-to-day affairs.

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

    Internet access and restrictions

    • To enable access to the internet, various gateways have come up in the last few decades in the form of telecom service providers, personal computers and smartphones, operating systems, etc.
    • However, when these gateways enable and restrict access to other gateways or networks, the openness of the internet is threatened.
    • They then shift roles from being a facilitator to a regulator, from being a gateway to a gatekeeper. Hence, the need for a code of conduct or regulation arises to keep the playing field level and accessible to all.

    digital

    Analysis: Telecoms and Government

    • Telecom service providers: Telecom companies have been instrumental in providing a gateway to essential communication services such as voice calls, internet data, and text messages.
    • Government measures to regulate telecoms: We have seen governments across the world take measures from time to time to regulate these entities to ensure democratic access for the public. If this code of conduct was not enforced on these gateway providers, the internet would not be what it is today. These providers would have turned into gatekeepers, and the internet would have been controlled by them, thwarting innovation and its democratic expansion.
    • Code of conduct cannot catch up the pace of emerging digital tech: With the rate at which digital technologies are evolving, the code of conduct and regulations can’t catch up with the new gateway providers that are emerging. One such example is distribution platforms for smartphone applications.
    • Benchmarks set by bigtechs helps to bring some hygiene in smartphone apps: The two prominent operating systems emerging for smartphones, Google and Apple, enjoy a lion’s share of the app store market. They brought in good practices to ensure basic hygiene for smartphone applications, maintained quality benchmarks for the content on their operating systems, and safeguarded the interests of their users.
    • Lack of full proof regulation would be a slippery slope: Though, without proper regulations to oversee how they decide on what should be weeded and whose interests should be guarded, it’s a slippery slope.

    Policy on Net Neutrality put forwarded by Indian Government 

    • Enforcing a code of conduct on telecoms: Closer home, another example of the enforcement of this code of conduct on providers was when the Indian government came out with the policy on Net Neutrality which, inter-alia, stipulates that telecom networks should be neutral to all the information being transmitted through it.
    • Meaning of Net Neutrality: Networks should treat all communication passing through them equally, independent of their content, application, service, device, sender, or recipient address. Adopting Net Neutrality ensured that we took a democratic stance against Big Tech.

    digital

    Questionable practices of distribution platforms

    • Practices without consent of its users: Various practices range from restrictions on payment gateways, advertising choices, app policies and various other aspects of an application or business that could be considered discriminatory in both principle and practice.
    1. For instance, a case of Goggle’s Update: Recently a report placed before the Competition Commission of India found Google Play Store’s payments policy “unfair and discriminatory”. As per an update in Google’s Play Store billing policy in September 2020, all applications on its platform were mandated to use its payment services for any kind of in-app payments or subscriptions.
    2. Similar case of Apple’s appstore: Similar concerns have been raised for Apple’s App Store, with both platforms said to be charging up to 30 per cent commission on payments processed.
    • Market dominance and unilateral control over smartphone apps by the bigtechs: Google and Apple dominate the global market share of smartphone operating systems (OS). This has enabled them to garner unilateral control over the publishing of smartphone applications on their OS.
    • Developers are forced to bend to the diktats of these bigtech gatekeepers: Bigtechs force developers to make changes to their applications or resort to using their proprietary advertising engines if they wish their applications to see the light of day. As is evident from the overnight change in Google’s billing policy, various smartphone application-dependent businesses and developers continue to remain vulnerable to such internal business policy changes on these platforms.

    European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) sets an example

    • Recognising these concerns: The European Union has recently enacted the Digital Markets Act; it is expected to be implemented by early 2023.
    • Aims to keep digimarket open for competition: The Digital Markets Act regulation aims to keep digital markets innovative and open to competition, through ex-ante regulation.
    • Prohibit anti-competitive practices: The DMA will prohibit the implementation of the most harmful anti-competitive practices by the largest digital platforms.
    • Objective is to maintain balance: The objective is to balance the relationship between these platforms that control access to digital markets and the companies that offer their services there.

    Conclusion

    • The Indian government has taken a huge leap forward in maintaining its sovereignty through the path-breaking and disruptive digital public goods it has created. Aadhaar, UPI, DigiLocker, and CoWIN are just a few names that adorn this list. However, there is still a wide dependence on various digital offerings enabled by multinational Big Tech companies. It is the need of the hour for the government to devise appropriate regulations to ensure a level playing field and not let the innovating gateways turn into tyrannical gatekeepers.

    Mains Question

    Q. India is the largest consumer of wireless internet. Analyze the role of big tech service providers in this and the role of government in ensuring a level playing field for all.

    (Click) FREE1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Balancing the Free Speech and Social Media Regulation

    Social Media

    Context

    • Recently Facebook, one of the social media giant set up the Oversight Board, an independent body, which scrutinizes its ‘content moderation’ practices.

    What are the IT rules of 2021?

    • Regulating social media intermediaries (SMIs): World over, governments are grappling with the issue of regulating social media intermediaries (SMIs).
    • Addressing the issues of SMI controlling the free speech: Given the multitudinous nature of the problem the centrality of SMIs in shaping public discourse, the impact of their governance on the right to freedom of speech and expression, the magnitude of information they host and the constant technological innovations that impact their governance it is important for governments to update their regulatory framework to face emergent challenges.
    • Placing obligations on SMI: In a bid to keep up with these issues, India in 2021, replaced its decade old regulations on SMIs with the IT Rules, 2021 that were primarily aimed at placing obligations on SMIs to ensure an open, safe and trusted internet.

    Social Media

    What are the recent amendments?

    • Draft amendments in June 2022, the stated objectives of the amendments were threefold.
    1. Protecting the constitutional rights: There was a need to ensure that the interests and constitutional rights of netizens are not being contravened by big tech platforms,
    2. Grievance redressal: To strengthen the grievance redressal framework in the Rules,
    3. To avoid the dominance: That compliance with these should not impact early-stage Indian start-ups.
    • This translated into a set of proposed amendments that can be broadly classified into two categories.
    1. Additional obligation on SMI: The first category involved placing additional obligations on the SMIs to ensure better protection of user interests.
    2. Appellate mechanism: The second category involved the institution of an appellate mechanism for grievance redressal.

    Social Media

    Why social media is said to be double-edged sword?

    • Moderation of content by platforms: Social media platforms regularly manage user content on their website. They remove, priorities or suspend user accounts that violate the terms and conditions of their platforms.
    • Excessive power in government’s hands: In today’s online environment, however, the existing government control on online speech is unsustainable. Social media now has millions of users. Platforms have democratized public participation, and shape public discourse.
    • Platforms of democratic freedom: As such, large platforms have a substantial bearing on core democratic freedoms.
    • Hate speech on internet: Further, with the increasing reach of the Internet, its potential harms have also increased. There is more illegal and harmful content online today.
    • Disinformation campaigns: On social media during COVID19 and hate speech against the Rohingya in Myanmar are recent examples.

    What could be the balanced approach between free speech and regulation?

    • Government orders must be respected: Government orders to remove content must not only be necessary and proportionate, but must also comply with due process.
    • Example of DSA: The recent European Union (EU) Digital Services Act (DSA) is a good reference point. The DSA regulates intermediary liability in the EU. It requires government takedown orders to be proportionate and reasoned.
    • Platforms can challenge the governments order: The DSA also gives intermediaries an opportunity to challenge the government’s decision to block content and defend themselves. These processes will strongly secure free speech of online users. Most importantly, an intermediary law must devolve crucial social media content moderation decisions at the platform level.
    • An idea of co-regulation: Platforms must have the responsibility to regulate content under broad government guidelines. Instituting such a coregulatory framework will serve three functions.
    1. Platforms will retain reasonable autonomy over their terms of service: Coregulation will give them the flexibility to define the evolving standards of harmful content, thereby obviating the need for strict government mandates. This will promote free speech online because government oversight incentivizes platforms to engage in private censorship. Private censorship creates a chilling effect on user speech. In turn, it also scuttles online innovation, which is the backbone of the digital economy.
    2. Coregulation aligns government and platform interests: Online platforms themselves seek to promote platform speech and security so that their users have a free and safe experience. For instance, during the pandemic, platforms took varied measures to tackle disinformation. Incentivizing platforms to act as Good Samaritans will build healthy online environments.
    3. Outsourcing the content regulation: instituting coregulatory mechanisms allows the state to outsource content regulation to platforms, which are better equipped to tackle modern content moderation challenges.
    • Platforms must follow the due process of law: Platforms as content moderators have substantial control over the free speech rights of users. Whenever platforms remove content, or redress user grievance, their decisions must follow due process and be proportionate. They must adopt processes such as notice, hearing and reasoned orders while addressing user grievances.
    • Transparency in algorithm: Platform accountability can be increased through algorithmic transparency.

    Conclusion

    • The GACs must be re-looked because they concentrate censorship powers in the hands of government. A Digital India Act is expected to be the successor law to the IT Act. This is a perfect opportunity for the government to adopt a coregulatory model of speech regulation of online speech.

    Mains Question

    Q. Social media is a double-edged sword in the realm of free speech. Substantiate. Explain in detail the Idea of coregulation of social media.

    Click and Get your FREE copy of Current Affairs Micro notes

  • The Amendments To The IT Rules, 2021

    IT rulesContext

    • The Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) has notified amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021) on October 28. In June 2022, MeitY had put out a draft of the amendments and solicited feedback from the relevant stakeholders. The draft generated considerable discussion and comment on the regulation of social media in India.

    What are the IT rules 2021?

    • Regulating SMI’s: World over, governments are grappling with the issue of regulating social media intermediaries (SMIs).
    • Addressing the issues of SMI controlling the free speech: Given the multitudinous nature of the problem the centrality of SMIs in shaping public discourse, the impact of their governance on the right to freedom of speech and expression, the magnitude of information they host and the constant technological innovations that impact their governance it is important for governments to update their regulatory framework to face emergent challenges.
    • Placing obligations on SMI: In a bid to keep up with these issues, India in 2021, replaced its decade old regulations on SMIs with the IT Rules, 2021 that were primarily aimed at placing obligations on SMIs to ensure an open, safe and trusted internet.

    IT rules What are the proposed amendments?

    • Draft amendments in June 2022, the stated objectives of the amendments were threefold.
    1. Protecting the constitutional rights: there was a need to ensure that the interests and constitutional rights of netizens are not being contravened by big tech platforms,
    2. Grievance redressal: to strengthen the grievance redressal framework in the Rules,
    3. To avoid the dominance: that compliance with these should not impact early-stage Indian start-ups.
    • This translated into a set of proposed amendments that can be broadly classified into two categories.
    1. Additional obligation on SMI: The first category involved placing additional obligations on the SMIs to ensure better protection of user interests.
    2. Appellate mechanism: The second category involved the institution of an appellate mechanism for grievance redressal.

    IT rules

    What are the additional obligations placed on social media intermediaries?

    • Users need to comply with rules of platforms(intermediaries): The original IT Rules, 2021 obligated the SMIs to merely inform its users of the “rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreement” that governed its platforms along with the categories of content that users are prohibited from hosting, displaying, sharing etc. on the platform. This obligation on the SMIs has now been extended to ensuring that its users are in compliance with the relevant rules of the platform.
    • Prevent the prohibited content: Further, SMIs are required to “make reasonable” efforts to prevent prohibited content being hosted on its platform by the users.
    • SMIs have to respects rights under constitution: Second, a similar concern arises with the other newly introduced obligation on SMIs to “respect all the rights accorded to the citizens under the Constitution, including in the articles 14, 19 and 21”. Given the importance of SMIs in public discourse and the implications of their actions on the fundamental rights of citizens, the horizontal application of fundamental rights is laudable.
    • Remove the content within 72 hours: SMIs are now obligated to remove information or a communication link in relation to the six prohibited categories of content as and when a complaint arises. They have to remove such information within 72 hours of the complaint being made. Given the virality with which content spreads, this is an important step to contain the spread of the content.
    • Ensuring the accessibility of services: SMIs have been obligated to “take all reasonable measures to ensure accessibility of its services to users along with reasonable expectation of due diligence, privacy and transparency”.
    • Provide content in all scheduled language: In this context, the amendments also mandate that “rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreement” of the platform should be made available in all languages listed in the eighth schedule of the Constitution.

    IT rulesWhat is the grievance appellate committee (GAC)?

    • Composition of GAC: The government has instituted Grievance Appellate Committees (GAC). The committee is styled as a three-member council out of which one member will be a government officer (holding the post ex officio) while the other two members will be independent representatives.
    • Complaint within 30 days: Users can file a complaint against the order of the grievance officer within 30 days.
    • Online dispute resolution: The GAC is required to adopt an online dispute resolution mechanism which will make it more accessible to the users.

    What are the concerns associated with GAC?

    • Confusion over GAC and High courts: It is unclear whether this is a compulsory tier of appeal or not, that is will the user have to approach the grievance appellate committee before approaching the court. The confusion arises from the fact that the press notes expressly stated that the institution of the GAC would not bar the user from approaching the court directly against the order of the grievance officer. However, the final amendments provide no such indication.
    • Apprehensions about appointment by central government: While this makes the inhouse grievance redressal more accountable and appellate mechanism more accessible to users, appointments being made by the central government could lead to apprehensions of bias in content moderation.
    • GAC doesn’t have enforcement power: Further, the IT Rules, 2021 do not provide any explicit power to the GAC to enforce its orders.
    • Overlapping jurisdiction of courts and appellate: if users can approach both the courts and the GAC parallelly, it could lead to conflicting decisions often undermining the impartiality and merit of one institution or the other.

    Conclusion

    • Across the world, social media regulation is need of an hour. Fake news, protests, riots are fuelled by social media outrage on petty things. However, government should not usurp the unaccountable power of in the name social regulation. Power of government should also be scrutinized by parliamentary committee.

    Mains Question

    Q. How social media can disrupt the law-and-order situation? Social media intermediaries have become the master regulators of free speech. Explain. critically analyze the new draft recommendations of IT rules 2021.

    Click and Get your FREE copy of Current Affairs Micro notes

     

  • Regulating online speech

    Online Speech

    Context

    • The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) has mooted two proposals for governance of online speech government appointed grievance appellate committees (GAC) and the industry self-regulatory body (SRB) seek to preclude this contest in favour of a unilateral government and industry agenda.

    What is an online speech?

    • A recorded online speech is delivered, recorded, and then uploaded to the Internet for later viewing. Examples are TED Talks and presentations in online or blended speech classes.
    • Such speech are recorded or sometimes made in real time using various social media platforms.

    Online Speech

    How unregulated online speech is becoming dangerous day by day?

    • Gendered disinformation and harassment campaigns: Impacting the mental health, job performance, and if and how they engage with online spaces.
    • GLAAD’s 2021 Social Media Safety Index says: 64% of LGBTQ social media users reported experiencing harassment and hate speech, including on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok.
    • Contributing to communal violence: In countries like India and Sri Lanka, failure to remove and prevent the amplification of harmful content can contribute to profound offline consequences, including violence and death.

    What are the proposals for the regulation of online speech?

    • Setting up Grievance appellate committees (GAC): The GACs, as per the draft issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity), will be constituted by the central government and will serve as an appellate body against decisions of various social media platforms.
    • Appointing Self-regulatory body by social Media platforms(SRB)?: As the name suggests, industries such as twitter, meta etc will appoint their own personnel and constitute the self-regulatory body to hear the grievances against the social media posts.

    Online Speech

    What are the Criticism over GAC and SRB?

    • Lack of substantive framework: Not only has the government not laid down a substantive policy with objectively defined contours of forbidden speech, the government wants the right to apply this highly subjective criteria on individual pieces of content and/or users.
    • Unreasonable removal of content: It is notable that the government has already arrogated this right and routinely issues take down orders (without providing rationale) to social media platforms to take down or block content with minimal pushback from platforms.
    • Serving the Governments agenda: However, the national security, public order logic of takedowns does not apply to reinstatement of content/users proactively blocked by the platforms and it is likely that an additional purpose of the GACs is to provide an institutional avenue for the ruling government machinery to get a set of aligned accounts/content reinstated instead of just takedowns.
    • Such regulations are said to be Non-democratic: It is evident that the GAC doesn’t meet even minimal standards of democratic legitimacy and should be scrapped. The industry SRB proposal too lack democratic legitimacy.
    • Profit before public interest: Platforms have repeatedly shown themselves to be driven by profit motives, which are often at odds with public interest. It is thus likely that such a platform-led body will try and maximise the interests of the industry and individual platforms as opposed to the interests of the Indian people.
    • It will increase Government’s unrestrained powers: Notwithstanding Twitter’s plea in Karnataka High Court against Centre’s “disproportionate use of power” to issue “overbroad and arbitrary” content-blocking orders, the track record of platforms in India of resisting government pressure has been very poor.
    • For example recent Twitter episode: For instance, a former safety head with Twitter reportedly told US regulators that Twitter put a government agent on its payroll under duress.
    • High Chances of Government’s pressure: The SRB may act as a rubber stamp providing false legitimacy for covert government pressure while the binding nature of SRB orders will make it easier for the government to exercise pressure on a single lever to ensure compliance across all platforms.
    • Lack of consensus in SRB: The other real possibility is that such a body will be a non-starter, wracked by internal dissensions or non-compliance and thus pave the way for the government GAC. This possibility is indicated by the divergent views of the constituent platforms.

    Online Speech

    What are the Suggestions?

    • Relooking the proposals: It is evident that neither of the two proposals meet the minimum standards of democratic legitimacy and need to be rethought.
    • Follow the democratic way: Given the centrality of free speech in a democracy, no government or private body can have unmitigated right to make decisions regarding the contours of acceptable speech. The argument that an elected government has earned the executive right to determine standards of speech like other policy decisions is fallacious because speech is the only democratic way to contest the government itself.
    • Least government interference: The governance of speech, including setting standards and implementation, must thus sit squarely outside the ambit of government.
    • Independent body answerable to parliament: This can be achieved through a statutory regulator answerable to Parliament.
    • Standard operating procedure to remove content: In the meantime, there has to be transparency in the manner content moderation decisions are taken, including the takedown orders issued by the government.

    Conclusion

    • The current proposals are preoccupied with policing individual pieces of content whereas the impact of social media platforms on our information ecosystems is fundamental. Social media platforms now play an increasingly interventionist role in amplifying certain voices and our public debate must move forward to review structural issues affecting information ecosystems.

    Mains Question

    Q.What are the perils of unrestrained online speech? Critically analyse the recent proposals by government to regulate the free speech.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Big Tech’s privacy promise could be good news and also bad news

    Context

    In February, Facebook stated that its revenue in 2022 is anticipated to reduce by $10 billion due to steps undertaken by Apple to enhance user privacy on its mobile operating system.

    Move towards more privacy-preserving options

    • Apple introduced AppTrackingTransparency feature that requires apps to request permission from users before tracking them across other apps and websites or sharing their information with and from third parties.
    • Through this change, Apple effectively shut the door on “permissionless” internet tracking and has given consumers more control over how their data is used.
    • Privacy experts have welcomed this move because it is predicted to enhance awareness and nudge other actors to move towards more privacy-preserving options, leading to a market for “Privacy Enhancing Technologies”.
    • Google’s Privacy Sandbox project is a case in point, though it remains to be seen whether it will be truly privacy-preserving.

    Big Tech dominance and issues related to it

    • Privacy and acquisitions: One standout feature of the Big Tech dominance has been the non-price factors such as quality of service (QoS) in general and privacy and acquisitions in particular.
    • Acquisitions to kill competition: Acquisitions by Big Tech are regular and eat up big bucks, not always to promote efficiency but to eliminate potential competition, described evocatively as “kill zone” by specialists.
    • According to a report released by the Federal Trade Commission, between 2010 and 2019, Big Tech made 616 acquisitions.
    • In the absence of a modern framework, competition law continues to rely on Bork’s theory of consumer welfare which postulated that the sole normative objective of antitrust should be to maximise consumer welfare, best pursued through promoting economic efficiency.
    • Market structure thus became irrelevant and conduct became the sole criterion for judgement.
    • Conduct now predominantly revolves around QoS which, like much else surrounding digital platforms, is pushing competition authorities to fortify their existing regulatory toolkits.

    Privacy as a metric of quality

    •  Companies such as Apple and DuckDuckGo (with its slogan “the search engine that doesn’t track you”) are employing enhanced user privacy as a competitive metric.
    • It has been shown that “websites which do not face strong competition are significantly more likely to ask for more personal information than other services provided for free”.
    • In 2018, OECD accepted that privacy is a relevant dimension of quality despite the low quality that may be prevalent due to lack of market development.
    • Regulators across the globe are recognising privacy as a serious metric of quality.
    • For instance, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in 2021 took suo moto cognisance of changes to WhatsApp’s “take-it” or “leave-it” privacy policy that made it mandatory for every user to share data with Facebook.
    • In its prima facie order, the CCI inter alia observed that this amounts to degradation of privacy and therefore quality.

    Way forward

    • Privacy and competition have overlapping boundaries.
    • If privacy becomes a competitive constraint, then companies will have the incentive to create privacy-preserving and enhancing technologies.
    • Barriers for new entrants: On the other hand, care must be taken so that Big Tech, aka the gatekeepers in the EU’s Digital Markets Act, do not misuse privacy to create barriers for newer entrants.
    • Restricting third-party tracking is not novel and other browsers such as Mozilla Firefox and Microsoft’s Edge have already done so.
    • But Google, which owns 65 per cent of the global browser market, is different.
    • By disabling third parties from tracking but continuing to use that data in its own ad tech stack, Google harms competition.
    • The use of privacy as a tool for market development, therefore, has to tread this tightrope between enabling and stifling competition.

    Conclusion

    An approach that balances user autonomy, consumer protection, innovation, and market competition in digital markets is a real win-win and worth investing in.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Protocols for social media

    Context

    The lack of clear systems within social media companies that claim to connect the world is appalling. It is time that they should have learned from multiple instances, as recent as the Israeli use of force in Palestine.

    Role of social media platforms in the context of conflict

    • There was no unpredictability over conflicts in the information age spilling over to social media platforms.
    • In the context of conflict, social media platforms have multiple challenges that go unaddressed.
    • Threat of information warfare: Content moderation remains a core area of concern, where, essentially, information warfare can be operationalised and throttled.
    • Their sheer magnitude and narrative-building abilities place a degree of undeniable onus on them.
    • After years of facing and acknowledging these challenges, most social media giants are yet to create institutional capacity to deal with such situations.
    • Additionally, they also act as a conduit for further amplification of content on other platforms.
    • Major social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter also provide space for extremist views from fringe platforms, where the degree of direct relation to the user generating such content is blurred.

    Technology falls short

    • Misinformation and disinformation are thorny challenges to these platforms.
    • Algorithmic solutions are widely put to use to address them.
    • These include identification of content violative of their terms, reducing the visibility of content deemed inappropriate by the algorithm, and in the determination of instances reported to be violative of the terms by other users.
    • More often than not in critical cases, these algorithmic solutions have misfired, harming the already resource-scarce party.
    • The operational realities of these platforms require that the safety of users be prioritised to address pressing concerns, even at the cost of profits.

    Lessons for India

    • The lack of coherent norms on state behaviour in cyberspace as well as the intersection of business, cyberspace, and state activity is an opportunity for India.
    • Indian diplomats can initiate a new track of conversations here which can benefit the international community at large.
    • India should ensure that it initiates these conversations through well-informed diplomats.
    • Finally, it is necessary to reassess the domestic regulatory framework on social media platforms.
    • Transparency and accountability need to be foundational to the regulation of social media platforms in the information age.

    Conclusion

    It is in our national interest and that of a rule-based global polity that social media platforms be dealt with more attention across spheres than with a range of reactionary measures addressing immediate concerns alone.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)