Social media guidelines reflect uneasiness among Left and liberal factions

• Follow

On March 1, the executive editor of The Frontier Manipur received a notice from the District Magistrate of Imphal West district under the rules which the Centre notified days before. They prescribe guidelines for social media intermediaries like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, and a code of ethics for online digital news media. The journalist, Paojel Chaoba, had posted on Facebook a discussion held the day before on whether the rules had put digital news media under siege and endangered independent journalism. The notice was the first under the new guidelines. A team of policemen had served the notice. It was clearly meant to intimidate.

The notice was withdrawn after the Centre clarified that it had not delegated enforcement powers to the states. A few days later the Supreme Court said the rules were mere guidelines and lacked teeth to prosecute and penalise. It made the observations while giving relief from arrest to an executive of Amazon Prime Video for a movie series that allegedly hurts religious sentiments and disparages policemen. The government’s top law officer assured the apex court that the government would address the inadequacy–that is, makes the rules more stringent.

The rules raise compliance costs, especially for ‘significant’ social media intermediaries like Twitter. They have provisions to strip encrypted chats of privacy and social media platforms of immunity from liability for content deemed offensive. Criticism of the government or groups allied to it can be construed as seditious or anti-national and blocked upon directions from the government, which also has emergency powers to take down such content on its own.

The government’s anxiety reflects the power of social media. The total print media readership as per the Indian Readership Survey is around 42.5 crore. About 18 crore households or 90 crore people watch television; only a slice watches TV news. Both print and TV media are controlled but social media is a noisy marketplace where opinion is freely vented. As per figures cited officially, the following is the user base of social media platforms: WhatsApp 53 crore, YouTube 44.8 crore, Facebook 41 crore, Instagram 21 crore and Twitter 1.75 crore.

The immediate provocation for the rules was Twitter’s pushback against the government directing it to block accounts that supported the ongoing farmers’ agitation in Delhi, particularly after the protests drew international attention. Twitter said that blocking the accounts would offend India’s Constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression. The government felt affronted. Hence its observation that foreign social media platforms were free to do business in India provided they abided by its Constitution and laws.

It’s true that social media intermediaries are not the dumb pipelines they are supposed to be. Their advertising-dependent business models require them to keep users engaged with provocative content. Companies should not have the power to regulate public opinion. But they will have to act as the first line of filter against content that can cause harm.

The conflict arises when the government is seen as partisan and not tolerant of certain shades of opinion. Its overreach on social media reflects that on civil society groups as well. Non-governmental organisations have seen their access to foreign funding severely crimped. Since 2014, 14,500 NGOs have been barred from accessing foreign funding, which has collapsed from $2.2 billion in 2018 to $295 million in 2019. Another requirement notified last year requires the 23,000 NGOs which are allowed to receive foreign money to open bank accounts only in New Delhi’s Sansad Marg branch of the State Bank of India. They can only spend 20 percent of the foreign money on “administrative expenses.” They are also restrictions on how they can redistribute the money.

This reflects an uneasiness with the “left, liberal ecosystem,” as BJP’s General Secretary (Organisation) B L Santhosh put it. In the process of controlling the message, it might end up choking the medium as well.

(Vivian Fernandes is a senior journalist and former editor. Views expressed are personal)