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.
Two out of Three ain't bad (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess these panels will know it when they see it.
I think you have it backwards (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
they absolutely do not want truthful posts up if they're critical of their administration
Maybe so but in this case the panels would be about moderation that had been done by the platforms and a process to correct that, not moderation they think should be done.
Re: (Score:2)
they absolutely do not want truthful posts up if they're critical of their administration
Maybe so but in this case the panels would be about moderation that had been done by the platforms and a process to correct that, not moderation they think should be done.
Yeah, I give it 6 months before they give themselves that power.
What is moderation? (Score:2)
they absolutely do not want truthful posts up if they're critical of their administration
Maybe so but in this case the panels would be about moderation that had been done by the platforms and a process to correct that, not moderation they think should be done.
Yeah, I give it 6 months before they give themselves that power.
So, how is "moderation" defined? Is an explicit or implicit "okay" of a message considered to be moderation? That is, is moderation only blocking a message, or is moderation the consideration of the message resulting in either blocking or allowing?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Good for them (Score:1)
Good start (Score:5, Informative)
Addiction (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
interference (Score:2)
So it begins. (Score:2)
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.
Coming from... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
... 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
"Democracy Index produces a weighted average based on the answers to 60 questions. The questions are grouped into fiv
Re: (Score:2)
State power should stay with the state (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You have it completely backwards. In the US, the first amendment exists specifically to deny the government the power to censor.
If you think it's a straw man, then you don't understand the argument.
I have no lov