Who Governs Online Speech?

Why in News?

• The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) has mooted two proposals for governance of online speech namely Grievance appellate committees (GACs) and the industry self- regulatory body (SRB).
• As per the article, this proposal is upfront government control and seeks to preclude the contest in favour of a unilateral government and industry agenda.

 

Background

• Earlier in 2022 MeitY proposed changes to the IT Rules 2021.
• One of these changes was the creation of a new GAC that could override the decisions of Resident grievance officers that significant social media intermediaries (SSMIs) are required to appoint as per IT Rules 2021.

 

About GACs and SRB

• Grievance appellate committees (GACs): The GACs, as per the draft issued by Meity, will be constituted by the central government with the objective to make sure that social media intermediaries do not take grievance redressal mechanisms lightly.
  • It aims to provide users with a primary option to “appeal against the grievance redressal process of social media companies” before approaching any court.
• Self- regulatory body (SRB): SRB is proposed by Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), an apex grouping of global and local social media companies.
  • SSMIs such as Twitter, Meta (Facebook), Google etc. will appoint their own personnel and constitute the self-regulatory body to hear the grievances against the social media posts.
  • The proposed committee will take up appeals by users with regard to “removal or reinstatement of user accounts or information, data, or communication links uploaded by users, for violating signatory’s policies,” by resident grievance officers appointed by the intermediaries.
  • However, decisions regarding content which are of “a serious and egregious (bad) nature,” or actioned under Section 69A of the IT Act, or uploaded by users with “pre-existing commercial arrangements,” cannot be challenged.

 

Arguments against GAC

• Undefined framework: The government has not laid down a substantive policy with objectively defined contours of forbidden speech.
• Applies on lone users: The government wants the right to apply this highly subjective criteria on individual pieces of content and/or users.
  • The government has already arrogated this right and routinely issues take down orders (without providing rationale) to social media platforms with minimal pushback from platforms.
  • These orders don’t offer a right of hearing to the content creator and are often secret, making scrutiny of government decisions impossible.
• Oriented coverage: It is likely that an additional purpose of the GACs is to provide an institutional avenue for the ruling party machinery to get a set of aligned accounts/content reinstated instead of just takedowns.
• Digital gag (suppression): Industry bodies and groups like the Internet Freedom Foundation and others warned that the GAC can work like a ‘digital gag’ making the Centre, the arbiter of permissible speech on the internet.
• No executive right: The argument that an elected government has earned the executive right to determine standards of speech like other policy decisions is fallacious because speech is the only democratic way to contest the government itself.

 

Arguments for GAC

• The government argues that the new grievance redressal mechanism will compel intermediaries to respect the constitutional rights of citizens.
• IT For Change (ITfC), a Bengaluru-based think tank, argued that the GAC mechanism is a necessity considering several instances where grievance officers did not adequately address user grievances.
  • It has further demanded that the GAC be given ‘quasi judicial’ powers to ensure its effectiveness.

 

Arguments against industry SRB

• Lacks democratic legitimacy: The platforms are usually driven by profit motives, which are often at odds with public interest.
  • This is evident generally in the rampant amplification of disinformation and hate speech in a bid to maximize engagement even though it comes at the cost of the integrity of the information ecosystem.
• Lenient standards: In India, specifically, the US-based social media platforms have been far more casual in enforcement of their own content standards as compared to in their home country.
  • It is thus likely that such a platform-led body will try and maximise the interests of the industry and individual platforms as opposed to the interests of the Indian people.
• Poor restraint record: Notwithstanding Twitter’s plea in Karnataka High Court against Centre’s “disproportionate use of power” to issue “overbroad and arbitrary” content-blocking orders, the track record of platforms in India of resisting government pressure has been very poor.
  • For instance, a former safety head with Twitter reportedly told US regulators that Twitter put a government agent on its payroll under compulsion.
• Act as rubber stamp: The SRB may act as a rubber stamp providing false legitimacy for covert government pressure.
  • Also, the binding nature of SRB orders will make it easier for the government to exercise pressure on a single lever to ensure compliance across all platforms.
• Risk of self-censorship : Internet Freedom Foundation argued that SRB will influence SSMIs to establish extra caution and discretion for politically controversial content, ultimately resulting in self-censorship.
• Inefficient body: SRB as a body may be a non-starter, wracked by internal disagreement or non-compliance and thus pave the way for the government GAC. This possibility is indicated by the divergent views of the constituent platforms.
• Overruled by GAC: The the self-regulatory organisation (SRO) can only co-exist only with the GAC model. On the flip side, the GAC can function without the SRO.

 

Way forward

• Legislative oversight: A statutory regulator answerable to Parliament can be reinstated to meet the minimum standards of democratic legitimacy.
• Specified and lucid criteria: Transparency needs to be inculcated in the manner content moderation decisions are taken, including the takedown orders issued by the government.
• Assessing holistic impact: The current proposals are preoccupied with policing individual pieces of content whereas debate needs to address larger role of social media platforms and their impact on democratic societies.
• Address structural issues: Social media platforms now play an increasingly interventionist role in amplifying certain voices and our public debate must move forward to review structural issues affecting information ecosystems.

 

Conclusion

• Given the centrality of free speech in a democracy, no government or private body can have unmitigated right to make decisions regarding the contours of acceptable speech. The governance of speech, including setting standards and implementation, must thus sit outside the ambit of government.

 

---

Source: Who governs online speech?