The social networking site Twitter, and other Internet-based services sites such as messaging apps, may soon face penal action for challenge to internal security through communication networks, the role of media and social networking sites in internal security challenges, basics of cybersecurity; money-laundering and its prevention.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology asked Twitter to block more than 250 tweets/Twitter accounts as they were found to be violating the national cyber law policies. These fake accounts were created with the sole purpose of spreading social unrest and even violence in the society.
The development came in the wake of violence in Delhi on January 26 during a tractor parade of farmers, protesting against the three farm bills.
Accounts included were linked to an influential magazine, members of an opposition party, and the protest movement such as Kisan Ekta Morcha. Many accounts were blocked after the order. However, the majority of them are restored.
Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act 2000 empowers the government to order block online content to an intermediary. The grounds for such order include sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense.
Application of the IT Act is not confined only to electronic data, but also extends to computer systems. Section 69A of the IT Act has been applied retroactively for the first time, and as per the provisions of this section, the government has ordered Twitter to “immediately suspend” all abusive content implied by the hashtag.
The Supreme Court of India struck down this section of the act in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. This section has been criticized for the secrecy of its process.
Social media platforms (or protocols) now assert a new power: They shape the way we see the world. While they claim to be neutral—they are neither unaware nor unaware of the role they play. Social media have become a new set of public squares in cyberspace where identity is fluid, anonymous, and therefore anything goes.
Our Constitution has defined free speech and its limits in Article 19(2). The principle that all platforms must abide by, therefore, is simple: any content or speech on a platform should pass the test of Article 19(2), and that alone.
The take-down policies, guidelines and algorithms of all social media platforms should be compliant with and not go beyond that Article. And this standard should be equitably applied to all, as per Article 14. As a ground rule that all platforms must comply with, this is simple enough to set down in law.
