The Indian government is proposing that content creators and other social media users should be governed by the same “code of ethics” as registered news publishers, and that social media platforms should be stripped of their safe harbor protections if they allow content that violates this code.
Basically, the proposal boils down to this: If passed, it would allow the Indian government (specifically its Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology) to have control over social media posts it deemed to be about “news and current affairs.” If a person’s post was judged to be inaccurate or unethical, it would be removed–and the platform they posted on could also face consequences.
The government claims its goal with the new rules is to crack down on fake news, hate speech, and deepfake imagery–but critics believe that instead, it wants overreaching power to censor posts it doesn’t like.
Subscribe to get the latest creator news
YouTuber Akash Banerjee, whose channel The Deshbhakt has 6.6 million subscribers, told the BBC that “Interestingly, despite many laws regulating online content, hate speech and fake news haven’t reduced in the country.”
“Meanwhile,” he added, “posts that are critical of the government–even if they’re satirical–are increasingly being blocked or removed.”
As an example, the BBC pointed to a March incident where X abruptly blocked around a dozen accounts whose main fare was satirical content about the Indian government.
X apparently initiated the blocks under orders from Section 69A of India’s IT Act, which allows the Indian government to cut access to online information “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement.”
One creator, Kumar Nayan, had his account (with its ~242,000 followers) restored after he challenged the block in court, but some of his posts are still unavailable until they’re reviewed by a government-appointed panel. The BBC said all of those posts either make fun of India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, or his political party.
“No reasonable person will say that these posts threaten the nation’s security or disturb communal harmony. They are just funny posts, so why does the government want them taken down?” Nayan told the BBC.
Human rights org Amnesty International argues these proposed changes “would facilitate abusive powers over users’ content.”
“The rules governing online spaces have progressively become more restrictive, with each successive amendment expanding state control over digital content,” Aakar Patel, Amnesty International India’s Chair of Board, said in a statement. “These amendments go further still, effectively turning social media platforms into enforcement arms of the state.”
He added that the amendments “contain a raft of alarming provisions that provide the authorities with intrusive and arbitrary powers over online content, which trample over users’ freedom of expression and privacy and pave way for mass and prolonged surveillance.”
The amendments were open for public comment through April 14; Amnesty International used that period to “urge the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to immediately withdraw these amendments.”
While this proposed rule will only apply to Indian citizens, it echoes a push for government censorship in the U.S. Donald Trump has targeted Section 230 (our safe harbor laws for social media), and the Ted Cruz-chaired Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation recently held a hearing called “Liability or Deniability? Platform Power as Section 230 Turns 30.”
