Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Technology

India Sets Up Panels With Veto Power Over Social Media Content Moderation (techcrunch.com) 23

India will set up one or more grievance committees with the veto power to oversee content moderation decisions of social media firms, it said today, moving ahead with a proposal that has rattled Meta, Google and Twitter in the key overseas market. From a report: The panels, called Grievance Appellate Committee, will be created within three months, it said. In an amendment to the nation's new IT law that went into effect last year, the Indian government said any individual aggrieved by the social media's appointed grievance officer may appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee, which will comprise a chairperson and two whole time members appointed by the government. (In compliance with the IT rules, social media firms last year appointed grievance and other officers in India to hear feedback and complaints from their users.) The Grievance Appellate Committee will have the power to reverse the social media firm's decision, the government said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

India Sets Up Panels With Veto Power Over Social Media Content Moderation

Comments Filter:
  • moving ahead with a proposal that has rattled Meta, Google and Twitter

    Well, at this point, maybe Meta and Google may still be rattled, but it sounds more like towards where Musk is heading.

    It seems like governments all over may be paying more attention to moderation on social media platforms, as having a small group of mostly U.S. citizens controlling much of the political discourse in your country seems like something most governments would be concerned about.

    • I guess these panels will know it when they see it.

      • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday October 28, 2022 @04:12PM (#63007073)

        I guess these panels will know it when they see it.

        I know what you are getting at but these panels are not about deciding *to* ban something, as you would with obscenity...

        They are instead about, someone who has been banned having a path outside of the social media service to go and complain that a ban was unwarranted, and thus to have the government force a service to un-ban them.

        I guess to some degree "know it when they see it" may still apply in judging if polka should be un-banned as well, but at least the end goal is to have more people able to speak, not fewer.

    • as having a small group of mostly U.S. citizens controlling much of the political discourse in your country seems like something most governments would be concerned about.

      Invest in something local instead of padding your pocket maybe?

  • Any company that doesn't like it is free to leave the Indian market.
  • Good start (Score:5, Informative)

    by bubblyceiling ( 7940768 ) on Friday October 28, 2022 @03:04PM (#63006859)
    We need similar mechanisms for account blocks, security issues, copyright etc. Otherwise companies like Google will often disable accounts without any recourse for the users, or de-monetize YT videos based on false claims.
  • I'd hate to be so addicted to a website that I had to take my case to a government "Grievance Appellate Committee" when they banned me.

    • Re:Addiction (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Friday October 28, 2022 @04:19PM (#63007085)
      The issue here is that private companies, beholden to no one, with an unknown agenda, can silence anyone, for any reason and not have to disclose why. Their decisions are beyond courts or elected officials. This is the ultimate information tyranny in a time where “newspapers” are almost a memory. It's a good step.
      • by qeveren ( 318805 )
        And I, beholden to no one, can eject another person from my private property without reason, recourse, or disclosure why. Or choose not to do business with them. Or whatever. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's public property.
        • Except that, millions of people have not become reliant on your property for information. Newspapers, even though private businesses, were required to print the truth. When proven otherwise, they printed redactions.
      • The issue here is that private companies, beholden to no one, with an unknown agenda, can silence anyone, for any reason and not have to disclose why. Their decisions are beyond courts or elected officials. This is the ultimate information tyranny in a time where “newspapers” are almost a memory. It's a good step.

        Exactly correct. Imagine posting truthful information [imgur.com] and having your account whacked.

  • Honestly, the best way to deal with this isn't to socialize the process of approval, but to create an ecosystem where the laws of supply and demand can turf out the assholes by social darwinism. Unpopular people tend to get ostracized. The government's job is to create a level playing field so that cheaters get punished for breaking the rules and to prevent oppressive monopolization, but it's the market's job to decide winners and losers.
  • I don't disagree that social media needs to be subject to the rule of law. But on the other hand, which law? (I don't know.) What is happening here is that one country is trying to exert control on social media in its jurisdiction. But if every country does the same, then it becomes impossible to have a medium of communication that is common to all countries. And thus the internet fragments into a multitude of nationalnet's with limited interconnection between them.

  • ... a country that fosters scam farms and imprisons pirate hunters. This country is russia on cotton candy.
    • ... a country that fosters scam farms and imprisons pirate hunters. This country is russia on cotton candy.

      India is not Russia. From 2021 Democracy Index, India has rank 46 vs Russia rank 124

      ....Country : rank, score, regime
      .....Norway : 001, 9.75, Full democracy
      .....Canada : 012, 8.87, Full democracy
      ........USA : 026, 7.85, Flawed democracy
      ......India : 046, 6.91, Flawed democracy
      .....Russia : 124, 3.24, Authoritarian
      ......China : 148, 2.21, Authoritarian
      Afghanistan : 167, 0.32, Authoritarian

      "Democracy Index produces a weighted average based on the answers to 60 questions. The questions are grouped into fiv

  • No matter which side you are on about censorship, in any case the power to silence and censor should NOT be on the hands of private companies beholden to no one.

    It is state power and should stay with the state.

    Isn't democracy supposed to hold the govt responsible to the people? Then why is anyone here worried about this?

    Don't hide behind the "private platform" strawman, social media is already a de facto utility like roads, electricity and internet. Silencing someone on the social media is just the same a

    • ⦠the power to silence and censor should NOT be on the hands of private companies beholden to no one. It is state power and should stay with the state.

      You have it completely backwards. In the US, the first amendment exists specifically to deny the government the power to censor.

      Don't hide behind the "private platform" strawman, social media is already a de facto utility like roads, electricity and internet.

      If you think it's a straw man, then you don't understand the argument.

      I have no lov

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...