The typo is deliberate, the 32-year-old embryologist says. When Dr Tanaya Narendra, one of India’s best-known sexual health educators, discusses myths around pain during sex on her page @Dr_Cuterus, the subtitles spell it SEGGS. Two years ago, Meta informed Dr Narendra that her account would no longer be recommended to non-followers. A handful of her videos were flagged for their sexual content. Her videos that reference human anatomy were repeatedly scrutinised. “These are not explicit sexual messages. It is literal medical information.”
Sharma’s anxiety stems from section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which allows the government to direct platforms to block public access to online content in the interest of national security and public order. India’s Sahyog portal now works with X, YouTube and Meta to take down posts that it deems a threat. With social media platforms, that guide is absent, the process of redressal is hazy.
Most systems that dictate behaviour conform to an established guide: The 10 Commandments, the Constitution, a college handbook, a company’s insider-trading or whistleblower policy.
“It is this vague legal framing that makes many creators wary of what is permissible online,” says Sharma. “The bigger fear for a creator now is that everything can be aimed around a single video: A defamation case filed in a far-off district court, a police complaint, a notice from some agency, a strike on their channel, an organised pile-on,” says Apar Gupta, advocate and founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation.
