Social media: Ignorance reigns in the corridor of power

By Sapni G K

One year has passed since multiple social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube made the unexpected decision to deplatform the then President of the United States, Donald J Trump. The platforms took this decision as Trump used his social media accounts to incite the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. The decision prompted remarks from multiple quarters, rightly identifying the value of the space these private companies provide. Lok Sabha MP Tejasvi Surya described the decision as a “wake up call” that highlighted “the threat to our democracies by unregulated big tech companies.” Echoing the sentiments of many in the USA, he signalled the sacred nature of freedom of speech and expression, but failed to factor in that action for violation of freedom of speech cannot be initiated against private parties, much less enforced against them. Social media platforms are privately held spaces that facilitate limited public exchanges and are not subject to the rules that apply to public spaces at large. As such, they operate on the basis of contracts between users and companies. Therefore, they have the rightful authority to terminate these contracts upon breach of terms.

The report on the suspension of telecom services/ internet and its impact in India, presented by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology chaired by Dr. Shashi Tharoor also evidenced another instance of Parliamentarians misunderstanding social media and the internet. The report identified the procedural ills of the framework governing the suspension of telecommunications in India and acknowledged that India leads in the number of internet shutdowns across the globe. The possible disruption to law and order by the exchanges facilitated by social media platforms appears as a justification for the unbridled use of internet shutdowns by the representative of the Ministry of Telecom. To this, the committee recommended the use of selective banning of social media platforms, enabling the use of other internet technologies. This comes in the backdrop of studies that have shown that internet shutdowns have had negligible effects on law and order. Such recommendations fail to consider the basics of operation of the Internet, and its highly interdependent, networked nature.

In the aftermath of the Facebook files, Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar suggested that liability for content on social media platforms must rest on the platforms themselves. He also mentioned that the Government was planning to initiate a “global standard-setting law” on the matter. It is concerning to see the tendency to ride on the justification of protection of women and children, when it can easily misfire to harm fundamental rights. Initiatives to regulate inadequately regulated tech companies are welcome, but that should not stifle the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Report of the Joint Committee on Personal Data Protection Bill

The report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (JPC Report) delved deep into the realm of intermediary liability, a stretch from its original mandate to look at the protection of personal data in India. The 2021 bill widens its legislative mandate to include laying down norms for social media intermediaries. This wasn’t a concern considered fit to be addressed by the Srikrishna Committee which was tasked by the govt in 2018 to draft the first iteration of the bill. This signals legislative scope creep, where the subject is not within the ambit of the proposed law.

The JPC Report contains baffling comparisons between print/electronic media and social media platforms. It recommends stripping social media platforms of the status of “intermediary” as laid down in the Information Technology Act, 2000 on the basis that social media ought to take responsibility for the content on their platforms. It misconstrues the functioning of social media, suggesting that they have the ability to “select the receiver of the content”. This reveals that the Committee has not given adequate thought to the differences in the characteristics of the above mentioned forms of media.

This reasoning further forms the basis of the change within the proposed Data Protection Bill, 2021. It replaces the term ‘social media intermediaries’ with ‘social media platforms’, calling for changes in the framework for social media.

Sapni G K is a Research Analyst at the Takshashila Institution.