The Indian Government and Social Media Platforms: A Digital Fallout

This year, the news that certain social media channels like Twitter and WhatsApp were about to be banned in India, spread like nothing short of a wildfire. Although it did not follow through, the question was imminent – would it have been possible? Probably not, but it did result in Twitter’s “intermediary status” being stripped off in the country. This now means that any content on Twitter “allegedly” not abiding by the law of the land will result in action being taken against Twitter itself, and not the uploading user – since Twitter is no longer the intermediary between the user and the audience – but the copyright owner itself.

News media did not leave the opportunity to make “Twitter vs the Government of India” a trending matter of discussion, especially across the month of May. The feud originated from the Indian government’s decision to establish a new set of IT rules for social media companies. These new rules and regulations required social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, among others, to create company positions for a Grievance Officer (who is to be a resident of India), a Chief Operating Officer, and a Nodal Contact Person for the Government of India. The aim of creating said positions is to address the concerns of Indian customers and the government in a more efficient manner - making grievance redressal faster and easier. A new and upgraded grievance redressal system would also mean that now, under the IT rules, any complaint made by a user must be addressed within twenty-four hours, and action is to be taken upon the same within fifteen days. Furthermore, any content on social media which consists of explicit sexual references would have to be removed within twenty-four hours.

On a more controversial note, the new IT policy also allows government officials to trace a message to its origin. Consequently, when Twitter and WhatsApp confronted the government that it would not only be breaching the privacy of individuals, but also undermining democracy itself, the government defended its actions by stating clearly that such action will only be resorted to when a message in circulation causes public unrest/violence, demeans the unity and integrity of India, or depicts child/sexual abuse. These are cases wherein the government would be “left with no other options.”

On being posed the question “why does the government deem that this rule is necessary?,” it argued that it found these platforms to be evasive of their responsibility, which created a legal necessity to impose the new IT policy. While some strongly believe that the time to drop the hammer had rightly arrived and the government is absolutely correct in taking this decision, others argue against it by pointing out that citizens are being outrightly stripped of their privacy, making the provisions unconstitutional. Fingers were also being pointed at the intentions of the government, who have classified “objectionable” cases as traceable under the new rules without explaining what is classifiable as “objectionable.” The subjectivity creates room for suspicion. When WhatsApp took the matter to Delhi high court, pleading for the right to privacy, it claimed that complying to the government’s new IT rules would mean their end-to-end encryption will hold no value anymore. One can see why the concern is valid – it is because even though the government promises that it would respect the fundamental right to privacy and the rule will only be used when absolutely necessary, there is no definition of “necessary conditions” set in stone.

The main question that now arises is would the government misuse the privileges it has sought from social media platforms on gunpoint, or will the on-ground reality be as serene as government has made it out to be? Can we really trust the government with something as important as our fundamental right to privacy? Moreover, what has recently added fuel to this fire is the debate over the use of “Pegasus” software for spying. While a citizen’s privacy has become such a fragile topic subject to debate, the government continues to dodge it. The serious accusations made in the Parliament against the government over using an Israeli spyware for personal gains, have been dealt with no concrete response.

For those of you who are wondering what the government could possibly achieve by imposing their new IT rules - it is simple. So far, we know that it can trace our messages, but what it can also do is manipulate the content people are viewing on their social media accounts. The policy mandates direct control over what you can and cannot see on your social media account, which is enough to silence protests, rig elections, and do so much more. The potential of impact it can create is beyond anyone’s imagination. In a country where more than 400 million people use social media, information changes hands faster than money. So, while the government has decidedly set out to fight the ugly side of social media, there is no assurance that they would not end up becoming a part of it.

In this context, while we stand at a crossroads to win something at the risk of losing a lot more, the only thing that is left for us to do is to weigh both sides and decide the balance of the scales for ourselves.