On January 31, after a wait for almost four months, Justice Patel’s was one among a split judgment delivered in the petitions filed in the Bombay High Court against the 2023 amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules. The amendment, which provide for setting up fact check units empowered to identify and tag what it considers false or fake online news for any activity of the Central government, had been challenged before the High Court by comedian Kunal Kamra and several others. Justice Neena Gokhale disagreed.

As the Patel judgement narrates at the outset, several petitioners (that included the Editors Guild of India and the National Broadcasters & Digital Association) apart from Kamra himself, different voices from different quarters, are united in their complaint about the Central Government’s 2023 amendment to a particular Rule under the Information Technology Act. This amendment, they all say, has just one purpose: to muzzle criticism and questioning of the Central Government as it goes about its ‘business’, to stifle dissent from what the Central Government puts out in regard to affairs of the state. 

“Through this amendment, the Central Government has anointed itself as the sole arbiter of what is or what is not ‘fake, false or misleading’. It, and it alone, will decide this, including the entirely ambiguous term ‘misleading’; and when it does, dare any ‘intermediary’ allow such information to continue to be hosted on a social media platform, that intermediary immediately risks losing statutory protection. The entire amendment is overbroad, vague and without controlling guidelines. It does not even provide for an opportunity for the propounder of any information to defend its correctness, and the government becomes a judge in its own cause (hence another dimension of violation of principles of natural justice).” (Para 2)

The findings are conclusions are delivered over nine pages. (Paras 202 – 2015).

Considering the effect of the impugned amendment, Justice Patel states that “What it does is to shift the responsibility for content accuracy from the creator or originator of the content to the service provider or intermediary, an entity that axiomatically has no control over the content at all. But an intermediary is the one that has safe harbour and, as a business entity, is regulated by the government in myriad ways. The impugned amendment makes the government’s chosen FCU the sole authority to decide what piece of user-content relating to the undefined and unknowable ‘business of the government’ is or is not fake, false or misleading. The lack of definition of these words: business of the government; fake; false; and misleading makes the amendment both vague and overbroad. Anything might be the business of government. Anything could be said to be ‘fake’. ‘Misleading’ is entirely subjective. And as to ‘truth’ and ‘falsity’, throughout recorded human history there are few, if any, absolute truths. “(Para 202).

“Perceptions, perspectives, possibilities, probabilities— all will to a greater or lesser extent colour what one chooses to believe or hold or chooses not to believe or hold. The assumption that there are absolute truths to even the business of government, even if we knew what that included and what it did not, is unsubstantiated.” (Para 202)

Most crucially, the judgement examines how exactly the envisaged ‘Fact Checking Unit’ under the ambit of the Central (Union) government will function.

“How the FCU will go about its business is also unknown. We are simply asked to trust it. This is not a question of trust, and especially not of distrust in any particular dispensation. It is simply a matter of setting the impugned Rule against the settled law and seeing whether it passes established Constitutional tests.(Para 203)

“By shifting responsibility for user content to the vulnerable segment, viz., the intermediary, the amendment of 2023 effectively allows the government, through its FCU, to be the final arbiter not just of what is or is fake, false or misleading; but, more importantly, of the right to place an opposing point of view. We have already seen examples, and they are not entirely hypothetical. The government routinely rebuts criticism. If, in addition, this is now dubbed fake, false or misleading (and there are no guidelines to suggest why it cannot), then criticism and debate are stifled. There is little achieved in saying that the guidelines will come later. There is no assurance of that either; and they should have been in place by now if there was such an intent.” (Para 204)

While recognizing the problem of deep fakes and similar challenges, the judgement observes that these are the very challenges that the nature of a 

“democratic republic with ensured freedoms: the cacophony of dissent and disagreement is the symphony of a democracy at work. The view of the FCU or the PIB that a particular piece of information relating to the business of the government is fake or false or misleading should not be allowed to be taken inviolate; most certainly, its publication cannot be subject to penalty and loss of immunity.” (Para 205) 

Who, after all checks the government asks the judgement,

“Who, after all, is to fact check the fact checker? Who is to say if the view of the FCU is fake, false or misleading? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Para 206)

The judgement goes on to elaborate how, the amendments to the rules under challenge seek to insidiously expand the restrictive aspects of Article 19 (2). Besides, they also fail to meet the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal, 2007.

“Of equal concern is the attempt in the impugned amendment to impermissibly expand the remit of Article 19(2). This, as I have noted, is directly contrary to the government’s own stand before the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishore, where it argued that Article 19(2) is exhaustive. I fail to see how the amendment is within the scope of Shreya Singhal either. To the contrary: it fails every test set out in that decision, especially for overbreadth and vagueness. The impugned amendment is ultra vires Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2), Article 19(1)(g), Article 19(6), Article 14, violates the principles of natural justice and is also ultra vires Section 79 of the IT Act. (Para 207)

Clearly rooting for the protection of all fundamental rights, he holds,

 “As a general and perhaps even inflexible rule, I would suggest that every attempt to whittle down a fundamental right must be resisted root and branch. The slightest possibility of a fundamental right abridgment cannot be allowed to stand. Every attempt to limit any fundamental right must be demonstrably confined to its permissible limits within Articles 19(2) to 19(6). Everything else is illegitimate. For between the ‘abyss of unrestrained power’ and the ‘heaven of freedom’ lie these three Articles of our Constitution: Articles 14, 19 and 21. These are the famous words of YV Chandrachud CJI in Minerva Mills v Union of India & Ors. (Para 208)

“The submission on Article 14 and the invalid classification is, in my view, correctly placed. As I have noted, information relating to the business of the Central Government is a subset fully included in the 2022 amendment. There is no particular reason why information relating to the business of the Central Government should receive ‘high value’ speech recognition, more deserving of protection with a dedicated cell to identify that which is fake, false or misleading, as opposed to precisely such information about any individual or news agency. There is material, indicated above, about what is called the epistemic apocalypse. We have seen that other than point to instance of ‘fakery’, there is no material at all of any particular ‘public interest’ or ‘national interest’ peril — and these are not even within the permissible parameters of Article 19(2). Consequently, it follows that separating out the business of the Central Government for preferential treatment is class legislation, not a rational or permissible classification. I will accept that it is not open to intermediaries to disclaim all responsibility: no Petitioner has suggested that. Wholesale abandonment of all responsibility is irresponsible. But that only reinforces the point that all information deserves equal treatment. (Para 209)     

The issue of governmental overreach and vagueness raised by the Petitioners have been     upheld.

“The questions of over breadth and vagueness are indeed troubling. I do not believe it is any answer to suggest that, though we do not have it now, in the fullness of time the FCU will evolve some sort of working protocol, guidelines or yardsticks. These are being, in that self-applied to handpicked content and without any indication of the processes to be followed it is difficult to accept that the impugned Rules are sufficiently narrowly tailored. These issues are discussed in Shreya Singhal, and those findings apply with equal force here. (Para 210)

“Further, the lack of contemporaneous guidelines raise the other question, never fully answered. As I have noted, the entire argument of the Union has more or less proceeded on the basis that all users are individuals. But, as we have seen immediately, that is entirely incorrect. Users are also entities such as news outlets and journals. Not only do they have their own fact-checking systems, but they and their individual writers publish in print and online. The decisive test must surely be that if the material in print cannot be subjected to FCU checking and compelled deletion, there is no reason why, merely because the exact same material also appears online it is susceptible to unilateral determination of fakeness, falsity or being misleading.” (Para 211)

“I have not been able to accept the submission, perhaps implicitly suggested, that there has been no violation — in the form of censorship or unilateral takedown as yet — and therefore there is no call for interference; or that the assault is on ‘mere possibility of abuse’. It is not my reading of the law that petitions can only lie infringement by infringement. The entire discussion in Shreya Singhal on ‘the chilling effect’ militates against an acceptance of any such submission, for the finding of the Supreme Court is clearly directed towards the anticipated future impact of a rule. The very words ‘chilling effect’ suggest only this.” (Para 212)

 The judgement also rejects the incorrect contention that the government is somehow sole repository of determination that citizens get “correct information.”

“More importantly, this argument is founded on the entirely incorrect theory that the government is somehow parens patriae; it is duty bound to ensure that citizens receive only ‘correct information’ (or what the government considers correct information); that the reasonable reader is infantile and cannot decide for herself or himself; and so on to the end of the chapter. This is again circular, for it is posited on the assumption that government-related information is somehow special and deserving of extra protection. This sits at odds with the fact that the biggest megaphone and the loudest voice is that of the government: if there is one entity that does not need such protection, it is the government. It already has an ‘authentic’ voice; possibly, the most authentic voice. And it has so far been unafraid to use it.” (Para 213)

Finally, I believe it is unthinkable that any one entity — be it the government or anyone else — can unilaterally ‘identified’, (meaning picked out and decided) to be fake, false or misleading. That surely cannot be the sole preserve of the government. The argument that the government is ‘best placed’ to know the ‘truth’ about its affairs is equally true of every citizen and every entity. Paradoxically, complaints of a grievous nature (pornography, child abuse, intellectual property violations) can only be taken down only after following a grievance redressed procedure; yet anything relating to the business of the Central Government can be ‘identified’ as fake, false or misleading by the FCU — and cannot be hosted. (Para 214)

Having made these cogent arguments in the conclusions and at length before, finally, in Para 2015, Justice GS Patel strikes down the “2023 amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021” (Para 2015). The solicitor general of India (SGI) has assured the Court that no further steps of implementation would take place before the matter is finally heard, afresh, by a new bench.

The entire judgement may be read here.

Related: 

Judges differ on challenge against IT amendments of 2023, right to freedom of speech & expression hangs in balance

Serious flaws in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act

Registration of digital fact-checking sites with govt may be a part of the future Digital India Bill

GoI targeted Apple days after the Hi-tech cos notified journalists & opposition politicians of phone hacking: Washington Post Exclusive

India’s 2023 bad laws: Impact on Individual Freedoms and Indigenous Rights in a weaponised state

Broadcasting Bill adverse to freedom of speech & freedom of press: EGI

The post 2023 Amendment to Broadcasting Rules are clear case of censorship nothing less: Justice GS Patel, Bombay HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 11 the World Health Organisation had said the Coronavirus variant first identified in India in 2020 “was being classified as a variant of global concern.” According to the World Health organisation (WHO), this was based on preliminary studies that showed that it spreads more easily. Named B.1.617, it is reported to be “the fourth variant to be designated as being of global concern” and the other variants of global concern were first detected in Britain, South Africa and Brazil. On May 12, the government issued a statement slamming media reports that used the term “Indian Variant”. According to the government the WHO had classified the variant as just B.1.617 and not called it India Variant, as some news reports called it. 

Now, Reuters reports that the information technology (IT) ministry has written to all social media companies asking them to “take down” content that refers to “Indian variant”. According to news reports, the letter which has not been made public yet says, “This is completely FALSE. There is no such variant of Covid-19 scientifically cited as such by the World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO has not associated the term ‘Indian Variant’ with the B.1.617 variant of the coronavirus in any of its reports.”

Reuters reported that according to “a senior Indian government source”, the letter is a “notice” that has been issued to send a “loud and clear” message that mentions of “Indian variant” are a form of “miscommunication” and that has “hurt the country’s image.” As is known, and was once again explained by Reuters, most references to Coronavirus variants are on the basis of where they are identified, for example there are “South Africa and Brazil” variants.

Related:

Indian coronavirus variant classified as one of global concern: WHO
Indians pay as Centre ignored warning of Covid-19 variants by experts
Covid-19: Scientists ask Modi gov’t to release data, increase genome sequencing
Covid-19: Triple mutation in West Bengal virus raises concern among experts

The post Covid-19: Centre tells social media firms to remove ‘Indian variant’ references appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Government of India has notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) issued a press release saying it had come up with these guidelines “amidst growing concerns around lack of transparency, accountability and rights of users related to digital media and after elaborate consultation with the public and stakeholders” and that the code has “been framed in exercise of powers under section 87 (2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and in supersession of the earlier Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011.”

Provisions for Social Media

When it comes to social media, MEITy says, “Social media platforms welcome to do business in India but they need to follow the Constitution and laws of India.” It further claims, “These Rules are a fine blend of liberal touch with gentle self-regulatory framework. It works on the existing laws and statues of the country which are applicable to content whether online or offline.”

But here’s where things get interesting. MEITy says, “Significant social media intermediaries providing services primarily in the nature of messaging shall enable identification of the first originator of the information that is required only for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of an offence related to sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order or of incitement to an offence relating to the above or in relation with rape, sexually explicit material or child sexual abuse material punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years.”

While the desire to combat virtual violence against women and children is no doubt noble, the same tools can be used to curb political opposition. The use of the terms “offence related to sovereignty and integrity of India” and “the security of the State” give the government wide berth to use this provision to scuttle dissent. This also virtually legitimises a form of backdoor surveillance on these grounds.

It also says, “An intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court or being notified by the Appropriate Govt. or its agencies through authorized officer should not host or publish any information which is prohibited under any law in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, friendly relations with foreign countries etc.” This again raises concerns about freedom of expression.

Digital and OTT platforms

Rules and guidelines of a primarily self-regulatory nature have been laid down for digital and OTT platforms, that also include online news providers. These will be monitored by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB).

Rules mandate self-classification of content into age-based categories. Also, when it comes to news, “Publishers of news on digital media would be required to observe Norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India and the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act thereby providing a level playing field between the offline (Print, TV) and digital media.”

The government justified the need for these rules saying, “There have been widespread concerns about issues relating to digital contents both on digital media and OTT platforms. Civil Society, film makers, political leaders including Chief Minister, trade organizations and associations have all voiced their concerns and highlighted the imperative need for an appropriate institutional mechanism. The Government also received many complaints from civil society and parents requesting interventions. There were many court proceedings in the Supreme C Court and High Courts, where courts also urged the Government to take suitable measures.”

The entire press release may be read here: 

Related:

Unnao reports: Twitter handles of Barkha Dutt’s portal, 7 others booked 
ED Raids & NewsClick: Weaponising law by Criminalising Free Speech
From Watchdog to Lapdog, Weaponisation of the India Media
Koo instead of Twitter: Is India becoming the next China?
Primary goals were surveillance and incriminating document delivery: Arsenal

The post Ethics Code for Social Media, rules for OTT platforms, online news appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It’s one thing to read about refugees in the news. It’s a whole different thing to actually go visit a camp. I saw people living in metal caravans, mixed with tents and other materials to create a sense of home. Many used improvised electrical systems to keep the power going. People are rebuilding their lives to create a better future for their families and themselves, just like any of us would if faced with a similar situation.

As a geographer, I was quickly struck by how geographically complex Zaatari camp was. The camp management staff faced serious spatial challenges. By “spatial challenges,” I mean issues that any small city might face, such as keeping track of the electrical grid; understanding where people live within the camp; and locating other important resources, such as schools, mosques and health centers. Officials at Zaatari had some maps of the camp, but they struggled to keep up with its ever-changing nature.

An experiment I launched there led to up-to-date maps of the camp and, I hope, valuable training for some of its residents.
 

The power of maps

Like many other refugee camps, Zaatari developed quickly in response to a humanitarian emergency. In rapid onset emergencies, mapping often isn’t as high of a priority as basic necessities like food, water and shelter.

However, my research shows that maps can be an invaluable tool in a natural disaster or humanitarian crisis. Modern digital mapping tools have been essential for locating resources and making decisions in a number of crises, from the 2010 earthquake in Haiti to the refugee influx in Rwanda.

This got me thinking that the refugees themselves could be the best people to map Zaatari. They have intimate knowledge of the camp’s layout, understand where important resources are located and benefit most from camp maps.

With these ideas in mind, my lab teamed up with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Al-Balqa and Princess Sumaya universities in Jordan.

Modern maps are often made with a technology known as Geographic Information Systems, or GIS. Using funding from the UNHCR Innovation Fund, we acquired the computer hardware to create a GIS lab. From corporate partner Esri, we were obtained low-cost, professional GIS software.

RefuGIS team member Yusuf Hamad and his son Abdullah – who was born in Zaatari refugee camp – learning about GIS. Brian Tomaszewski, CC BY

Over a period of about 18 months, we trained 10 Syrian refugees. Students in the RefuGIS class ranged in age from 17 to 60. Their backgrounds from when they lived in Syria ranged from being a math teacher to a tour operator to a civil engineer. I was extremely fortunate that one of my students, Yusuf Hamad, spoke fluent English and was able translate my instructions into Arabic for the other students.

We taught concepts such as coordinate systems, map projections, map design and geographic visualization; we also taught how to collect spatial data in the field using GPS. The class then used this knowledge to map places of interest in the camp, such as the locations of schools, mosques and shops.

The class also learned how to map data using mobile phones. The data has been used to update camp reference maps and to support a wide range of camp activities.

I made a particular point to ensure the class could learn how to do these tasks on their own. This was important: No matter how well-intentioned a technological intervention is, it will often fall apart if the displaced community relies completely on outside people to make it work.

As a teacher, this class was my most satisfying educational experience. This was perhaps my finest group of GIS students across all the types of students I have taught over my 15 years of teaching. Within a relatively short amount of time, they were able to create professional maps that now serve camp management staff and refugees themselves.

A map created with geographic information collected by students in the RefuGIS program. UNHCR, CC BY
 

Jobs for refugees

My experiences training refugees and humanitarian professionals in Jordan and Rwanda have made me reflect upon the broader possibilities that GIS can bring to the over 65 million refugees in the world today.

It’s challenging for refugees to develop livelihoods at a camp. Many struggle to find employment after leaving.

GIS could help refugees create a better future for themselves and their future homes. If people return to their home countries, maps – essential to activities like construction and transportation – can aid the rebuilding process. If they adopt a new home country, they may find they have marketable skills. The worldwide geospatial industry is worth an estimated US$400 billion and geospatial jobs are expected to grow over the coming years.

Our team is currently helping some of the refugees get GIS industry certifications. This can further expand their career opportunities when they leave the camp and begin to rebuild their lives.

Technology training interventions for refugees often focus on things like computer programming, web development and other traditional IT skills. However, I would argue that GIS should be given equal importance. It offers a rich and interactive way to learn about people, places and spatial skills – things that I think the world in general needs more of. Refugees could help lead the way.
 

Brian Tomaszewski, Associate Professor of Information Sciences and Technologies, Rochester Institute of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post I teach refugees to map their world appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
According the Act, an “Intermediary, with respect to any particular electronic message, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that message or provides any service with respect to that message[20].” Pavan Duggal, an advocate practicing law in Supreme Court, clarifies that a social media user providing content on social media is also recognized as ‘intermediary’ under the law[21].
 
Table-I
 
The Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011 issued under Section 78 and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 provides a detailed outline for intermediaries in order to prevent illegal use of internet platforms. It also speaks of cooperation with law enforcing mechanism in case of violation of the law by any person. The government amended the principal IT Act in 2008 and expanded scope of the law to deal with newly emerging cyber crimes. This amendment had also inserted Section 66A to criminalize sending offensive messages through communications services. However, in March 2015, the Supreme Court in its judgment found it violative of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and struck down the proviso.[22]
 
The Indian cyber law enacted in 2000 and amended from time to time has not been effective enough in minimizing the spread of fake news. The statistics shown in above table (Table- I ) reveals that from 2013 to 2015 while there was an increase in number of cases registered under various offences in law, progress on registering cases against hate mongering people remain negligible. During these three years, only eight cases were registered and seven people were arrested for committing crime of cyber terrorism.
 
Indian Penal Code
 
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) under various sections also criminalizes number of cyber activities that harms individual and society. A total of 3,422 cases were registered under various sections of IPC related to cyber crimes in 2015 as compared to 2,272 cases in 2014 and 1,337 cases in 2013 (NCRB, 2015). Most of these cases reported by the National Crime Record Bureau are related to data theft, cheating and criminal breach of trust. While there is an increase in reporting of cases of cyber crimes under IPC, the pendency of cases remained very high. According to the last available report of NCRB on crime in India, pendency rate of cyber crime under IPC is as high as 96.2%. Similarly, 88.9% cases registered under IT Act, 2000 are also pending.
 
Other Executive Mechanisms
 
Both the Union and state governments have been using other means to stop spread of fake news especially those with the purpose of instigating people in riot-hit areas. One of the common tools in this regard is to impose internet shutdown in riot-affected areas to minimize deadly impact of misuse of social media. Recently Jammu and Kashmir witnessed a shutdown of internet services during the scuffle between agitating locals and security forces. It was also used in West Bengal first in Darjeeling and later in Basirhat to restrict spread of hate mongering information.
 
However, many people have complained about arbitrary shutdown of internet services, as it affects people who are not part of riot and violence. The former chairman of National Commission for Minorities, Wajahat Habibullah in 2016 had expressed his concern about increasing misuse of social media in inciting communal violence. He advocated for a mechanism to monitor misuse of social media[23]. India has witnessed gross misuse of social media in spreading fake news to instigate riots and communal hatred in last one decade. Despite this, there has not been any change in the way our security and intelligence control riots. According to Habibullah our riot control plan were developed by British rulers and need to be revamped keeping in mind the current context.
 
While the social media has been repeatedly acknowledged as one of the primary means to spread fake news and instigate communal violence, the existing cyber law remains ineffective in stopping the ever-growing market of such fake news. Whats App among various social media platform is widely misused by extremists especially because it is difficult to trace the origin of the message.
 
Realizing this challenge the district magistrate of Kupwara in Jammu and Kashmir in April 2016 issued a circular which mandated registration of all ‘Whats App’ groups in the district. The circular intends to stop use of this application for provoking youth for creating law and order problem in the state. The circular also holds responsible the administrator of the group for any irresponsible remark or provocation[24].
 
However, it seems not to be a sound legal and policy solution as the Delhi High Court later in one similar case refused to hold administrator of the Whats App group accountable for defamatory comment by any group members[25]. Additionally the registration of Whats App group may be challenged as an act of impinging in individual privacy. Restricting people from using social media or surveillance of such activities is not an option but there is need to work around misuse of social media by strengthening our existing laws and developing better cyber infrastructure to deal with such complaint at scale.
 
Part- IV
 
Conclusion
 
The advancement of information technology in last few decades has bought in radical changes in our life. It has helped individuals to grow and progress on the one hand and facilitated system of governance that is more transparent, reliable, accessible, fair and efficient on the other. Amongst innumerable advantages of information technology, what has been truly path breaking is that it allows people to share their ideas with a wide global audience in an instant.  This technological advancement has not only broken monopoly of traditional media houses to produce content but also broken all types of barriers in creating and disseminating one‘s own content/write-ups.
 
However, as with any other technological advancement, it brings with it certain short comings. While we are able to get updates of events almost as it happens, it is also true that it has also lead to fake and false news spreading like wild fire creating a rift between various communities, caste, race and religion by spreading lies. Multi cultural countries like India have witnessed several incidents of communal violence instigated by lies propagated by religious fundamentalists for political gain.
 
Political battles are now being fought over in the social media. Not only fringe elements, but mainstream political parties and government run by them are in forefront of using fake news for various purposes. The repeated attempts to win arguments by using fake information by political parties, their leaders and government shows that there is a conscious effort to mislead people.
 
Indian government has pro-actively embraced the advantages of advancement in information technology to serve its people better. However, its efforts to minimize misuse of technology and cyber crime remain ineffective. The IT Act, 2000 even after several amendments in 2008 has been unable to tackle the menace of fake news through social media. This law does not criminalize creation and spread of fake news on cyber space. Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Whats App, and Instagram have been widely misused to spread fake news, lies and propaganda in India. Despite this, all these platforms have no accountability under the IT Act, 2000 to filter unlawful messages posted by their users. Using this gray area available in cyber space, hate mongering people/groups with vested political interest have been instigating communal hatred and violence. The Union government has itself acknowledged several times in the past that the hate mongering propaganda on social media plays a key role in instigating communal hatred, violence apart from spreading false stories about political opponents. While this is not a completely new phenomena, various observations of experts reveals that the presence of fake news has increased tremendously in last 3-4 years.
 
What is more worrying is that those involved in the industry of fake news enjoy political patronage. Moreover, there is a high demand of fake news from these political bosses to justify their opportunistic and dishonest politics. Fake news producing portals and individuals have been supplying lies and misinformation not only to political propagandists but also ministers and their subordinates to present a false picture of their achievement as leader and as government. While social media platforms are today an integral part of our lives, we also need to regulate these platforms to stop spread of fake news, lies and false propaganda.
 
This ‘Brief’ was written by the authors for the Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies. Republished with permission.  
 
References
 
Bhuyan Anoo, 2017, ‘What the Indian Media can Learn from the Global war on Fake News, The Wire, 21 April 2017, retrieved from: https://thewire.in/126611/fake-news-social-media-2/
 
Trend Micro, 2017, ‘The Fake News Machine: How Propagandists Abuse the Internet and Manipulate the Public’, Retrieved from: https://documents.trendmicro.com/assets/white_papers/wp-fake-news-machine-how-propagandists-abuse-the-internet.pdf
 
Media Matter, 2017, ‘Media Matter for America 2020 Plan’, retrieved from: http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/media-matters-donor-pitch.pdf
 
Bhatia Gautam, 2017, ‘The line between fiction and fact, The Hindu, April 24, 2017, retrieved from: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/the-line-between-fiction-and-fact/article18196866.ece
 
BBC, 2017, ‘Solution that can stop fake news spreading’, BBC World, January 30, 2017, retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38769996
 
Nayak Nakul, 2017, ‘Fighting Fake News in India’, Asia and the Pacific Policy Society, July 5, 2017, retrieved from: https://www.policyforum.net/fighting-fake-news-india/
 
Tewari Pradeep, 2015, ‘The Habits of Online Newspaper Readers in India’, J Socialomics 4: 124, retrieved from: https://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/the-habits-of-online-newspaper-readers-in-india-2167-0358-1000124.pdf
 

Lok Sabha, 2017, ‘Unstarred Question No. 2807- Misuse of Social Media’, Answered on August 02, 2017, retrieved from: http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/12/AU2807.pdf
 
Rajya Sabha, 2017, ‘Starred Question No. 254 – Misuse of Social Media to Spread Hat Campaign’,  Answered on March 24, 2017, retrieved from: http://164.100.158.235/question/annex/242/As254.pdf
 
NCRB, 2015, ‘Crime in India 2015 Statistics’, National Crime Record Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
 
NCRB, 2014, ‘Crime in India 2014 Statistics’, National Crime Record Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
 
Chopra Arushi, 2017, ‘Number of Internet Users in India could cross 450 Million by June: Report’, Live Mint, March 02, 2017, retrieved from: http://www.livemint.com/Industry/QWzIOYEsfQJknXhC3HiuVI/Number-of-Internet-users-in-India-could-cross-450-million-by.html
 
Gioe, David, 2017 National Interest, July 1st accessed on 16th August 2017
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-history-fake-news-21386?page=3
 
Mitter, Sohini, http://mashable.com/2017/03/30/fake-nostradamus-predictions-published-media-amused/
 

The post Fake News and Social Media: A Deadly Combination appeared first on SabrangIndia.