Context: Today we are going to take up on the show a subject that is being debated vigorously these days and that is regulating social media platforms. Especially in recent months, there’s been a lot of sound and fury over the conduct of a social media platform. Why? Let me explain to you. Social media platforms describe themselves as technological platforms or intermediaries that empower people to exercise their right to self-expression and also the right to information. They claim they do not create their content, and therefore are not responsible for what users produce And on this basis they claim exemption from libel, defamation, and other laws and regulations that govern traditional media like newspapers and television. However, recent events like the massive violence on Republic Day indicate the rampant misuse of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The technological tool has today become a platform to spread hate and create violence and this is a huge cause of concern. Given the unprecedented increase in the use of hate speech, false and misleading news, danger to public order, defamatory and offensive posts and other criminal activities on social media, there is a growing need for regulating these platforms. This is what we are going to discuss on the show today. Is it time to set legal boundaries for social media companies? To answer this and also talk about other aspects related to the subject.
Background

• The issue relates to tweets put out by some handles on the ongoing farmer protests that suggested that a farmer genocide was being planned. 
• The Ministry of Electronics and IT ordered these handles to be blocked on the grounds that they were spreading dangerous misinformation about the protests. 
• The Government’s initial order was issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• This is the same Section under which hundreds of Chinese apps have been banned in recent months.
• Twitter initially complied with the order but then restored these tweets and handles.
• The technology platform’s stance may perhaps even lead to a legal challenge to the provisions of Section 69A.

Issues

• Hate speech: The tweets that the govt. wanted blocked was not merely distasteful but seriously problematic, and indefensible on the grounds of freedom of speech. 
• Safeguards for intermediaries: The world over, technology platforms have enough safeguards to act as intermediaries without being liable for the content that is published. 
• Section 69A: Though the use of Section 69A has been often criticised for the secrecy surrounding the process, it was upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). 
• While provocative posts have no place on any platform, free speech should not be hit.
• Section 69A, along with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 provide for a mechanism to block information from public access through any computer resource by a direction from the Central Government or any officer specially authorized in this behalf. 

Under Section 69 A the govt. can direct an intermediary to block any information for public access 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 to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above

The final order given for such blocking to a Government agency, or intermediary has to have its reasons recorded in writing as stated under Section 69A(1) of the IT Act.

In India section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, provides the necessary shield to the intermediaries—social media platforms in this case—against liabilities arising from any third-party information made available by them on their platform. However, it is to be remembered that section 79 while being a “safe harbour" provision is not an unconditional immunity.
Should technology platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Google be treated on a par with other media organizations since they also carry news?

• Social media’s reach is much wider than the traditional media’s. Access to smartphones and better bandwidth connectivity have increased the social media presence multiple times over. Social media platforms are today extremely influential. 
• So it is necessary that when social media is used for disseminating news or information, the platforms should be treated on par or subject to a higher standard of care and accountability as compared to traditional media organizations. 
• Freedom of speech and expression in India is also coupled with duty of responsibility and accountability. 
• Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) of the Constitution goes hand-in-hand with reasonable restrictions that may be imposed under Article 19(2). 
• It would be beneficial for India to look at the regulation standards implemented by different countries in order to introduce guidelines which form a balance between freedom of speech and accountability of social media platforms.

Existing regulations and misuse

• In India, social media platforms already come under the purview of the Information Technology (IT) Act, the ‘intermediaries guidelines’ that were notified under the IT Act in 2011 and the Indian Penal Code.
• Under existing laws, social media channels are already required to take down content if they are directed to do so by a court or law enforcement.
• There are also reporting mechanisms on these platforms, where they exercise discretion to ascertain whether a reported post is violating community guidelines and needs to be taken down.
• These, however, have been reported to be arbitrary – many posts on body positivity and menstruation, for instance, have been taken down in the past while other explicit imagery continues to be allowed.
• Many of the existing regulations themselves are “dangerously close to censorship and may have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, which is why cases are being fought on those in courts.”
• Another problem of a lot of regulatory measures is the vagueness of language which is exploited by state agencies to behave in a repressive way.

Need for regulations

• The speed and reach of social media has meant that subversive rumours and fake news get aired with impunity. This has resulted in serious law and order problems. In India, this phenomenon has assumed dangerous proportions. Fake news on WhatsApp has led to lynchings and communal flare-ups in many parts of the country. This menace needs to be curbed. 

Challenges before the government

• Too stringent a policy of policing social media could violate the individual’s right to privacy.
• It’s not easy to force Facebook Inc., the owner of WhatsApp, to give up on the app’s unique selling proposition to the user of complete end-to-end confidentiality.

Road Ahead

• Any conversation on additional regulation of social media brings up concerns about privacy and surveillance. Therefore, any bid at regulating expression online has to be proportional and concrete with adequate redressal mechanisms and without any blanket provisions.