Thread by @MishiChoudhary

If the version of the law as presented on TV was accurate, there won't be any fight over #ITRULES. Compelled to do this thread.

Platforms don't want to police content if they lose safe harbor.

They are happy for any content to float through their medium.

#Twitter

Intermediaries are entities that provide services enabling the delivery of online content to the end user. This includes internet service providers, search engines, DNS providers, social media platforms, cyber cafes.

The intermediaries play an important role in the dissemination of information but do not have any editorial control over their content.

“Intermediary liability”, refers to the extent of liability that an intermediary stands to incur due to the non-permissibility under law of content they deal in.

Seeing how intermediaries neither create nor modify con-tent, the predominant consensus has been that it would be inequitable to hold them strictly ac-countable for unlawful user-generated content.

Therefore, they are given protection from any legal liability in the form of a safe harbour provision. This safe harbour provision in India can be found under S. 79 of the IT Act.

World over, broadly 3 models exist: strict liability, safe harbor and broad immunity. India that follows a safe harbor characterized by“notice-and-takedown” processes.

These r legally prescribed procedures that clearly outline how content takedown requests must be received and processed by intermediaries.

These procedures r laid out in the guidelines notified under S. 79 as well as the conditions laid out in S. 79.

Governments both when UPA was in power and the current one have tried to change these Rules.

Last time these rules were challenged in the Shreya Singhal case where @MouthShut challenged these rules amongst other parties.

This time @GoI_MeitY and for some reason @MIB_India on 25.02.2021 notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Before this it was very simple:

Businesses (Intermediaries) decided their own Terms & Conditions (as they can).

An Intermediary was required to take down content if they received an intimation:
1. in the form of a court order or

2. on being notified by the government.

But such requests were restricted to the restrictions laid down in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and not any category the Govt feels like.

Now please read the new Rules meity.gov.in/writereaddata/…

@GoI_MeitY is literally ASKING the platforms to inform users not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information that, is patently false and untrue, and is written or published in any form, with the intent to mislead or harass a person

You can't make a rule and ask people to do something about misinformation and when they do it, make a public theater out of it by exchanging letters or arm twisting.

Get rid of these #ITRules

Then we can all agree on that you only want content related to "Child pornography, terrorism, criminal investigation and women's crimes " to be taken down and only those handles blocked.

Twitter or any other company when they say there r merely a sales office r also being disingenuous.

This Lex Loci Server and get another entity out of your jurisdiction game has been played for far too long.

That's why I say this is all theater at the expense of user rights.

Both @GoI_MeitY & companies are unnecessarily engaging in a public fight

Coss need regulations but not at expense of users' rights

Govt needs to build trust, if they curb dissent/use law to settle political scores, even genuine attempts at regulating tech giants seem suspicious

Both @GoI_MeitY
& companies are unnecessarily engaging in a public fight

Cos need regulations but not at expense of users' rights

Govt needs to build trust, if they curb dissent/use law to settle political scores, even genuine attempts at regulating tech giants seem suspicious