New Delhi, Apr 7 (PTI): Takedown and blocking powers are already provided for under the existing provisions, and the proposed amendments to the IT rules are not linked to content takedown actions, MeitY Secretary S Krishnan said on Tuesday.
He said the proposed amendments do not give the government wider powers nor expand those, and are “merely clarificatory in nature”.
Fielding a question on the significant rise in blocking action seen over the last three-four months, Krishnan attributed the increase to synthetically-generated content.
“There has been a sudden explosion across the board…. This is not to do with any one political party…. So, a sudden explosion of so-called ‘deepfakes’ has meant that further action has been taken,” he said at a media briefing.
To a question on whether there will be a provision for giving specific reasons behind recent takedowns of certain posts, Krishnan asserted that “these changes (IT rule amendments) have nothing to do with what are the takedowns….” Takedowns happen under existing provisions, he said, adding that the two — the IT rule amendments being proposed and the takedowns — are not linked.
The trigger on the latest draft amendments relates to the request from law enforcement agencies (LEAs) on preservation of content and the suggestion from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting that user-generated news and current affairs content should be dealt with by it and not the Meity, Krishnan said.
Platforms have told the IT ministry that obligations for intermediaries and news publishers need to be differentiated. They are “uncomfortable” with being held responsible for user-generated content, especially under rules designed for publishers.
“Those issues have been raised…. Intermediaries have pointed out in their representation this morning that they are uncomfortable with all this because the content is actually put out by a user, which is why the sharper a distinction between the way a user content will be dealt with and the news publisher content will be dealt with,” Krishnan said.
In the present scheme of things, registered news publishers are called to inter-departmental committees, where they are asked to modify specific content.
“In that framework, it is fine because the publisher is the same person who is putting it out. Now, when the intermediary appears, in certain cases, you may not even have the original user appearing. In certain cases, maybe the user will come…. In that case, the intermediary cannot direct or cannot make those changes…. So those amendments or those modifications have been pointed out to us, and we will examine,” Krishnan said, adding that the intent is not to treat the two in the same manner.
It is pertinent to mention that the debate around social media takedowns has intensified in the last months, particularly following instances where certain parody, satire and spoof posts were either removed or flagged across platforms — critics allege that such takedown and arbitrary blocking raises concerns over free speech and overreach.
Advocacy groups also argue that content, intended at humour, have at times been clubbed under stricter enforcement actions, raising questions on how platforms and authorities distinguish between misinformation and satire.
Amid a public outcry over the draft IT rules amendments that, among other changes, propose to bring independent news creators on the Centre’s radar and mandate platforms’ compliance with advisories and SOPs, the MeitY on Tuesday met social media intermediaries and civil society groups to hear their concerns, with Krishnan later asserting that the ministry is “open” to suggestions.
Meanwhile, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) reiterated that the amendments should be scrapped entirely. It argued that the proposals could enable opaque censorship and violate principles of natural justice under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
“We submitted, in brief, that the modifications indicated at the meeting do not fundamentally alter the illegality or the censorial impact of the proposed changes. We grounded this position in the framework of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and in the existing patterns of opaque censorship under the Rules that operate without any meaningful adherence to the principles of natural justice,” the IFF said in a post on X.
The digital advocacy group has reiterated its demand for a complete withdrawal of the proposed amendments and substantially-greater transparency in the rule-making process going forward.
The IFF rued that the civil society participation in Tuesday’s meeting was sparse, with only three to four organisations in the room.
“This speaks to the gradual erosion of capacity and shrinking number of civil society organisations in India that work on digital rights,” it said. PTI MBI RC
(This story is published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. No editing has been done in the headline or the body by ABP Live.)
