Recently, Parliamentary panel on information technology told representatives of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram that they cannot operate like news media without accountability.
Issue
Context:
Recently, Parliamentary panel on information technology told representatives of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram that they cannot operate like news media without accountability.
About:
The Parliamentary panel on Information Technology had summoned Twitter head Jack Dorsey to appear before it and had refused to meet "junior officials" of the micro blogging site during its meeting.
The meeting had been called against the backdrop of growing concerns about safeguarding citizens' data privacy and the possibility of social media platforms being used to interfere in the upcoming elections.
Background:
A surge of hate speech on Facebook and other social media sites in India has raised the political heat. Under basic User-Content agreements, offensive posts would have to be taken down within one week after a complaint is submitted.
Companies would also be required to file quarterly reports on their efforts to crack down on hate speech.
Of late, social media has gained wider attention. In fact, 2018 was the year of judgment for social media: Facebook had one of the worst years with issues being raised over data and user privacy, Google Plus was finally shut down as well.
The government has been taking a strong view of misuse of social media platforms and is also proposing to amend IT rules to curb fake news and increase accountability of such apps.
Some important pointers about social media:
|
Analysis
Why the issue is important:
What has happened now?
The 31-member parliamentary panel is mulling over following pointers:
What is the difference between social media platforms as aggregators or selectors of content?
Highlights from the Report and Bill:
Have the media platforms acted in the past to remedy certain ills?
Social networking platforms in 2018, not only made country-specific changes -- be it labeling forwarded messages, limiting the number of people a user can send a message to at one go and launching public awareness campaigns against fake news. They also agreed to store user data belonging to Indians within the country.
While social media activism brings an increased awareness about societal issues, questions remain as to whether this awareness is translating into real change.
Social media platforms have the potential to create division in society, incite violence, pose threat to India’s security or let foreign powers meddle in Indian elections.
Considering the need for clear regulation of this sector, the government has drafted a bill on data protection. It has liberally utilized recommendations of the Justice BN Srikrishna committee's report.
While the two issues (use of social media as a news platform and data protection) are two different issues, however it is to be aptly considered as intertwined. The absence of clear data protection norms will let the media platforms slip away from the havoc which the malicious news content may produce.
Way forward:
Facebook, Twitter and the WhatsApp have admitted that there is a scope for corrective measures and they would undertake these measures at the earliest.
It would be worthy to see if these corrective actions are taken within the GDPR and Justice B.N. Srikrishna committee's report guidelines.
The social media is a faceless leviathan. What it does has the capacity to impact millions. Within this context, it becomes all the more critical to evolve an ever encompassing and comprehensive framework to allow its run freely under competent accountability norms.
Learning Aid
Practice Question:
Recently, Indian Parliamentary House panel told social media platforms that they can’t carry news without accountability as aggregators or selectors of content. Analyze the statement in the context of draft Data Protection Bill. Examine, how far the proposed action of the government can create a justified regulation within social media?
Verifying, please be patient.