The ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) has asked Meta to ensure that its recommendation systems do not result in showing only a single or limited set of narratives, but instead provide diverse information. This comes two days after the ministry sent an advisory to all social media companies asking them to give priority to government complaints about content that could affect public order.
the Meta advisory was issued on a significant date for the protests Although a MeitY official had told HT earlier that the October 8 advisory was general in nature and just not only related to protests demanding Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation. On October 10, the leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party were detained, the internet was shut down for 24 hours in a 4-km radius of Jantar Mantar and for 10 hours in eight areas where thousands of protesters were being detained throughout the day. Sixth, it should cooperate in a timely manner with law-enforcement and other authorised government agencies, including by furnishing information or assistance in line with applicable law and within the timelines set by the IT Rules, 2021. Over the past two weeks IFF has serviced atleast 9-10 creators and journalists for account based restrictions that are being pro-actively done by META.
Such content includes videos, images, statements and static graphics relating to public-order and law-and-order situations, which, when presented without adequate context or disproportionately amplified through recommendation mechanisms, may contribute to public confusion, apprehension and disturbance of public order and social tranquillity. Fifth, Meta has been asked to strengthen its mechanisms for rapid identification, review and escalation of content that is gaining significant reach through recommendation systems and could cause widespread public confusion, apprehension, violence or disturbance of public order. This is to ensure rather than a legal basis for takedowns a pro-active censorship mechanisms deployed by META so protests related accounts and posts are restricted without any government orders. “This is primarily a negotiation place between a government ministry and the world’s largest social media company to settle the limits of free speech through a private correspondence. MeitY must withdraw this advisory forthwith, and Meta must publicly disclose every takedown and every act of downranking carried out under it. It listed five kinds of content that need particular attention: Old, unrelated or selectively edited visuals presented as current events; unverified or misleading claims about the imposition of emergency, restrictions, police action or other official measures; audio-visual material on law-and-order situations without adequate context; content likely to incite violence or other unlawful activity; content that is being disproportionately amplified through recommendation mechanisms despite being potentially misleading or lacking adequate context.
The Meta advisory, seen by HT, said, “It has come to the notice of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) that certain content relating to ongoing public events and developments is being prominently displayed and recommended to users through the feeds/recommendation systems of platforms operated by Meta. Apar Gupta, founder of digital rights advocacy Internet Freedom Foundation, said, “This advisory even though is not legally binding is a continuing censorship directive since the first Jantar Mantar protests in July after which Meta, specifically Instagram have been placed under government pressure. Even this advisory which contains phrases like content “without adequate context” and periods of “heightened public-order sensitivity” are not tied to any provision of the IT Act or the IT rules. The government asked Meta to exercise “enhanced diligence”, like it asked other social media intermediaries in October 8 advisory, on content surfaced, recommended or amplified through its feed and recommendation systems, “particularly during periods of heightened public-order sensitivity”.
