The internet grew in the last three decades as a global, open network connecting people, enabling the exchange of ideas. But, in recent years, it has morphed into something very different. The internet is increasingly being carved up and dominated by platforms, aka intermediaries that, in turn, wield tremendous influence and power over what a netizen consumes.
In India, these internet players are regulated by the Information Technology (IT) Act. It was pushed, in its current form, by the United Progressive Alliance government in 2008 — and provides, through Section 79, a safe harbour for these intermediaries. This means they have little or no responsibility for the content and material they carry — a provision that has been brazenly misused to escape accountability.
For decades, their influence and power have grown unchallenged, even as they have distanced themselves from the regulatory rules and laws that real life publishers/content creators have to comply with and operate under. Remember, all non-digital media and content creators have significant regulations and rules to comply with.
For all its power to do good, these intermediaries, operating in this type of rule-less environment, have exercised power — for years hidden, but now out in full view — to shape/distort narratives and, therefore, incite public opinion and behaviour sans accountability. When used by bad people, this becomes a dangerous force multiplier to create violence, hate and divisions — with no corresponding accountability and compliance requirements under any law.
The debate around the growing power of these unregulated “platforms” and the need for some rules has waxed and waned. After every period marked by critical commentary, people and governments have tended to move on, allowing consolidation of power and lack of regulation to continue uninterrupted.
{{/usCountry}}The debate around the growing power of these unregulated “platforms” and the need for some rules has waxed and waned. After every period marked by critical commentary, people and governments have tended to move on, allowing consolidation of power and lack of regulation to continue uninterrupted.
{{/usCountry}}The lack of accountability of platforms, combined with non-traceability of illegalities, poses huge risks to a democracy because of the ability to violate offline laws in the online world without fear or consequence. This also represents an unprecedented power in the history of mankind — a person sitting somewhere in Silicon Valley has the power to amplify/mute a person far away or allow inciteful or illegal content to continue, without being accountable to any law in the jurisdiction where this content is being consumed or consumer being impacted.
Our Constitution has defined free speech under Article 19 and the limits that can be put on that right to free speech in Article 19(2). The principle that all platforms should normally abide by, therefore, is simple — any content or speech on a platform can be taken down if it meets the test of 19(2) and that alone. India has a surfeit of laws to protect the individual and the State — both in the real world and in the online world.
However, specifically vis-à-vis the internet, the laws and regulations are a mix of old, inflexible and static. Consumers have very little protection against digital platforms when many use so-called “guidelines” and “algorithms” to decide to mute or amplify content on totally non-transparent terms — repeatedly violating Article 19’s guarantee to free speech. All social media platform takedown “policies”, “community guidelines” or “algorithms” must be compliant with, and not go beyond, Article 19(2) exceptions. And this standard must be equitably applied to all, as per Article 14. But none of this is followed by these platforms.
India is the largest connected nation in the world, and under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has made huge strides in Digital India. It is fitting that India leads the way in addressing these challenges with the new intermediary guidelines. These guidelines harmonise offline and online rules. The same type of accountability and rules that applies to a broadcast TV platform will apply to digital platforms. It permits transparent self-regulation to evolve, and it also permits the continuation of the safe harbour under Section 79 as long as the platform exercises due diligence on its users — implying that platforms have to take responsibility for traceability in the event of inciteful and/or illegal content.
To ensure that the costs of compliance don’t become a burden on start-ups and smaller enterprises, the guidelines specify a higher threshold of compliance for Significant Social Media Intermediaries. But most importantly, it establishes an important principle in this debate of regulating tech — the principle of accountability to the consumers and communities they serve — by ensuring that consumer redressals are an obligation of these platforms and are not evaded.
These new rules are the right way forward and will continue to evolve. The values of a free and open internet, consumer rights and, at the same time, accountability of platforms are all being met with this contemporary regulatory regime — that will continue to evolve. India has signalled that it will harness the good of the internet effectively to fuel its rise. At the same time, it is proceeding to evolve a culture of accountability that ensures that the internet never becomes a safe haven for those who seek to misuse it.
Rajeev Chandrashekhar is a BJP MP, national spokesperson of the party and a member of JPC on data protection bill
The views expressed are personal