On 8 July 2021, the Supreme Court, coming down heavily on social media giant Facebook, said the digital platforms that which can ‘polarise public debates’ and ‘influence vast sections of opinions’ should remain accountable to those who trust them. The bench comprising Justices S K Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy observed that Facebook’s ‘simplistic approach’ that it is merely a platform posting third-party information and has no role in generating, controlling or modulating that matter, is unacceptable.
A little earlier, on 5 July 2021, the Indian government said that microblogging site Twitter Inc., no more enjoys liability protection against user-generated content in India as it has failed to comply with the new IT rules. The statement from the Ministry of Information Technology to the Delhi High Court came in the wake of a case filed by a Twitter user who wanted to complain about some allegedly defamatory tweets on the platform, and said the company was not complying with the new law that requires appointment of certain new executives. Social media platforms have time and again, directly and indirectly, meddled in India’s internal affairs risking law and order and sovereignty of the nation. It’s only now that they are being pulled up for the same.
The risks of social media
The social media conundrum is not at all a new one. Ever since Facebook, Twitter and later WhatsApp became popular in India, discussions on privacy issues, fake news, anti-national narrative, etc., have become commonplace. There have been several instances where fake news, misinformation and inflammatory forwards on social media have led to hate speech, criminal offences even riots and the companies did little to nothing to prevent such events.
Now, with the Supreme Court rejecting the plea of Facebook India Vice President Ajit Mohan against summons issued by Delhi Assembly’s Peace and Harmony committee in connection with the 2020 riot probe, the move has stirred a hornet’s nest. It said Facebook will have to appear before the Delhi Assembly panel in connection with the riots probe but can’t be forced to answer questions. The plea challenged the committee’s notices in September 2020 that sought Mohan’s presence before the panel probing the Delhi riots and Facebook’s role in spread of the alleged hate speeches. The court also said ‘while Facebook has played a crucial role in enabling free speech by providing a voice to the voiceless and a means to escape state censorship’, the court ‘cannot lose sight of the fact that it has simultaneously become a platform for disruptive messages, voices, and ideologies.’ It further added that Delhi cannot afford riots like the one in February 2020 and ‘Facebook’s role must be looked into.’
The court also said misinformation spread through platforms like Facebook affect governance and ‘it is this role which has been persuading independent democracies to ensure that these mediums do not become tools of manipulative power structures.’ The ruling made it clear that social media giants cannot shirk accountability when they are the catalyst of lawlessness and disorder in the country.
Lobbying through social media
Social media platforms such as Twitter have become the modern-day tool for lobbying and furthering the agenda of motivated groups. Self-styled leaders with an army of Twitter followers ‘promote’ or ‘troll’ based on their agenda and motivated interests. This mindless lobbying has, unfortunately, reduced nationalism to a mere political posturing.
Today, standing up for India or her values invites name-calling, even censorship. Facebook and Twitter have become self-styled ‘judges’ and ban or censure accounts and handles at their whim by interpreting ‘their’ terms and policy as per their ‘convenience.’If that’s not bad enough, the moment someone posts a nationalistic message, he/she is swiftly labelled as a ‘bhakt’ and trolled into oblivion. Objectivity is ‘subjective’ in such cases.
The mischief of creating an environment that promotes a certain kind of news/information, with far-reaching consequences, is systemic. Recently, a complaint was filed with the Delhi Police’s Cyber Cell against Twitter India MD Manish Maheshwari for allegedly spreading communal hatred. The complainant accused Twitter India of ‘not taking down controversial posts shared by the handle Atheist Republic.’ Uttar Pradesh police too lodged an FIR against Maheshwari in connection with the microblogging site displaying a wrong map of India – showing the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh outside India – on their website.
The cracks are clearly visible
The lines are clearly drawn out and posturing is the name of the game. The death of Fr Stan Swamy being positioned as a ‘custodial death’ is being countered with facts, figures, judgements and arguments but is being portrayed as a moot point in running down UAPA, the NIA and concurrently the Central government.
The indictment of Republic Editor Arnab Goswami, his arrest from home and his imprisonment at Taloja Jail were perceived with a sense of vicious vindication by a lobby that bayed for his blood. Never mind if the move, in itself, was a violation of the rule of law or an affront to freedom as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution itself.
Why, then, even the members of the Fourth Estate stood divided on the issue and barely a few stood in support of Goswami almost unabashedly vindicating the stand of the police. It took the intervention of the Supreme Court to ensure his release and concurrent termination of all Chapter proceedings.
Now, with Police and Public order being issues in the State list, any anomaly has to be decided by the State in question which must be held accountable for being politically incorrect or vindictive in its approach. While the Centre is being blamed for Fr Stan Swamy’s death in custody as the matter was being decided by the NIA, the State government wasn’t blamed for Arnab Goswami’s arrest and Chapter proceedings being initiated against him.
Social media platforms have played colossal roles in judging situations even generating support for some while playing down the angst of another. The bias is more than evident and is perfectly legal, till it transgresses the law as is the case now with Facebook and Twitter who will have to fall in line, sooner or later.
In its most recent judgement in the Facebook case, the Supreme Court has said, “The immense power held by platforms like Facebook has stirred a debate across the world, the bench said, noting the endeavour “to draw a line between tackling hate speech and fake news on the one hand and suppressing legitimate speech which may make those in power uncomfortable, on the other.”
“The significance of this is all the more in a democracy which itself rests on certain core values. This unprecedented degree of influence necessitates safeguards and caution in consonance with democratic values. Platforms and intermediaries must subserve the principal objective as a valuable tool for public good upholding democratic values,” it said.
“Facebook today has influence over 1/3rd population of this planet! In India, Facebook claims to be the most popular social media with 270 million registered users. The width of such access cannot be without responsibility as these platforms have become power centres themselves, having the ability to influence vast sections of opinions,” the court said.