E-Paper
Disable Community Notes on X or get publisher tag, Parliament panel moots
Nishikant Dubey said Meity should either direct platforms to disable community notes on platforms or consider imposing a “publisher tax”.
New Delhi : A parliamentary panel has observed that features like Community Notes, on social media platforms such as X, should be treated as a publishing activity, thus making the platform itself a publisher and not an intermediary, the head of the committee said in a social media post on Saturday.
According to Bharatiya Janata Party member of Parliament (MP) Nishikant Dubey, who heads the parliamentary standing committee on communications and IT, the ministry of electronics and IT (Meity) should either direct platforms to disable community notes on platforms or consider imposing a “publisher tax” — in what has been construed as obligations similar to Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, which requires platforms to compensate news publishers.
An official at Meity, who asked not to be named, said the ministry has not received a formal recommendation from the parliamentary panel. “If we receive a formal recommendation, we will examine,” this official said.
“Our committee, that is, the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology, has unanimously told @GoI_MeitY, the Government of India, that @XCorpIndia’s job is community note publishing, not that of an intermediary, so either social media platforms should shut down their community notes, otherwise, as per Australia’s law, they will have to pay the publishers’ tax,” wrote Dubey in a post, loosely translated from Hindi.
Dubey’s comments come against the backdrop of raging controversy around the government’s decision to amend the Information Technology Rules, 2021, which — in the proposed form — will expand the government’s regulatory oversight to user-generated content, including features like community notes, when they relate to news, politics, or public policy.
HT first reported on April 10, these changes could bring community notes under the ambit of the ministry of information and broadcasting, potentially allowing authorities to order the removal of notes, including those that add context to or challenge claims made by public officials.
The report has since drawn responses from opposition parties.
Karnataka’s information technology minister and Congress leader Priyank Kharge posted on X, “Community Notes on X, which allowed users to democratically challenge misinformation, is now being quietly brought under tighter control through the new IT rules...Just weeks ago, several accounts that raised legitimate criticism against the BJP Government were quietly withheld. Why is there no similar action against those who spread vile hatred and propaganda under the patronage of the BJP IT cell.”
Shiv Sena (UBT) member of ParliamentPriyanka Chaturvediwrote on X, “This is an unnecessary and unreasonable encroachment through the draft IT rules proposed by @GoI_MeitY. As a balanced approach to policy and technology, we can set a better example for the world. Introducing such rules gives the impression that the country’s government seeks to suppress the community’s ability to expose misinformation through community notes.”
Digital rights advocacy group Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has questioned both the procedural and factual basis of Dubey’s claim, noting that no report of the parliamentary committee placed before the House mentions Community Notes.
It also flagged that committee proceedings are typically confidential until formally tabled, and said the statement contains a “material inaccuracy”, particularly in invoking Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, which “operates in an entirely distinct field” and does not treat features like Community Notes as publishing activity.
IFF further argued that under Indian law, including the precedent set in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, merely hosting or ranking user content does not strip platforms of intermediary protection, warning that expanding this interpretation could have broader implications for free speech online.
Dubey’s post refers to “publisher’s tax,” conflating it to Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, which requires designated digital platforms to negotiate and pay news publishers for the use of their news content, rather than imposing any tax.
The post also attaches a picture of a document explaining the role of “intermediaries” in Australia’s criminal justice system, which refers to trained professionals who assist witnesses in court, rather than digital platforms or social media services.
MeitY published the amended IT rules on March 30 and asked for comments by April 14.
However, after objections from the industry and civil society following consultations on April 7, the ministry has extended the timeline for inviting feedback by two weeks, allowing comments from stakeholders till April 29.
HT reached out to X and BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for a comment but did not get a response.
