In some convenient timing the Facebook oversight board has released a decision relating to the BJP ordering it to restore a post. Let us look at it in context. Link to the decision below. 1/n oversightboard.com/decision/FB-H6…
Yesterday on April 28 two significant events occurred with respect to Facebook and India. First, it announced it’s 2021 first quarter results. Their note by the CFO is almost gushing on the numbers. (Source: Facebook, April 28) 2/n
Out of the, Daily Active Users ("DAU"), Indians constitute the largest number. This number is close to 320 million users in India. 3/n (Source: Statista)
Now imagine, given the number of users in India and it's priority for Facebook as a market, does it find mention in any regulatory penalties or risks, till date? There are only 4 relevant references to, "India" in their 2020 SEC filing. 4/n d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801…
The only reference which indicates *any* regulatory risk is a pending litigation in the Supreme Court. Notice how they term it may impact, "our ability to target ads". (Disclosure : IFF is an intervenor in this case). 5/n
Now, let us look at why, we in India should *not* take any actions by Facebook on face value. It's past conduct simply does not inspire confidence. (Source : IFF's Analysis) 6/n internetfreedom.in/facebook-human…
Why do these actions appearing jarring? FB's reaction to hate speech in the United States seem to be very different. Just look at how it approached a civil rights audit. With high level statements & transparency. In India, nothing. Silence. 7/n facebook.com/business/news/…
Facebook's response to yesterday's, "accidental" censorship on, #ResignModi is not documented on its "newsroom". This will not be documented by it. Even the justification provided was vague and evasive only after press pickup. Go ahead look. 8/n about.fb.com/news/
Now, commentators will distinguish the oversight board from FB itself. But please consider why people in India should have low trust in FB based on financial filings, past conduct & discriminatory behaviour. India is just a market to exploit for revenue maximisation for FB. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification from the Lok Sabha for a conviction in a criminal defamation case is another blow against Indian democracy. One does not even need to be fond of him as a person or support his politics to understand it.
Here a colonial law has been twisted & used as a weapon to target an opposition member and bar their participation in parliament. Defences such as enforcing the rule of law or awaiting the outcome of an appellate process are farcical. This is plainly obvious vendetta politics.
For years, I have advocated for legal reform on defamation laws in India. Abolition of criminal penalties and improving certainty, proportional remedies for repairing damage to individual reputations. It includes a constitutional challenges & assisting on a private members bill.
Six tweets on the budget and the national economic survey. Let me start with the Economic Survey. There are four parts of interest. The first is tele-connectivity that uses 2014 data to showcase growth while fairly acknowledge a digital divide. However, it fails to comment on 1/6
...recent trends evident from data over the past two years of slowing growth, even regression in more recent data. The second area is how platforms, particularly CoWin is uncritically presented as a, "digital public good". This means that it works for every Indian. However.. 2/6
Evidence indicates that CoWin undermined vaccine equity. It did work, but first for the privileged. A holistic analysis is absent that may prevent a more humane and inclusive digitisation. Third, a whole range of digital services that are a part of the India Stack are... 3/6
Amendments to IT Rules have been notified establishing a GAC (Grievance Appellate Committee) that is staffed with government appointees. This means the government now has control over content moderation decisions by social media companies.
Imagine the indian government with veto power on what stays and goes on social media, based on the complaint of another user. This is not regulation it is direct executive control that presents risks of censorship. Also, how will the cases be picked? Will orders be published?
The object of a defamation case is to repair the reputation of a person in the eyes of the public. Hence, the principal remedies for restitution are an injunction to prevent circulation, distribution and some monetary relief (for actual pecuniary loss). 1/n
In an instance when a publication has been debunked publicly, withdrawn & retracted, there is little that remains to be achieved through a legal proceeding. May be an apology/contrition to the impacted parties? But then there also has to be an actual harm to reputation. 2/n
More pragmatically, in defamation cases quite often the question to ask, specifically in an indian setting is not about the result but the process and pendency. Given many such proceedings drag on for years and lead to unclear determinations -- what value does the case serve? 3/n
Yesterday @internetfreedom revealed the Aarogya Setu Privacy Protocol was discontinued highetening concern that personal data may be stored in perpetuity. Based RTI work in which IFF files close to 400 applications a year and take them to the CIC putting in years of work. 1/4
Each day, IFF's staff works hard in a small team of 12 people on policy engagement, strategic litigation, parliamentary outreach and civic engagement. This is tough work but has significant social impact to ensure that digitisation in India is rights centric. 2/4
What gives this work legitimacy are Indians like you who resonate with IFF's mission. Fund our work & help us pay our salaries. Each month we publish how much money IFF raises, and how much we spend. Here, consistent work, needs regular giving and support. 3/4
India made a proposal at a UN forum for 66A. “ET has reviewed a copy of the speech document which was presented by the Indian delegation. All three clauses suggested by India are the same as those in Section 66A of the IT Act, which was struck down” 1/6 economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-byte…
Section 66A was completely struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional. “Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).” 2/6 indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
Even after it was struck down on 24 March, 2015 many Section 66A cases continue to linger. Even fresh prosecutions are initiated. For quantitative-data and qualitative analysis do visit the “zombie tracker”. 3/6 zombietracker.in