Trouble began when these open digital platforms became conscious of their power to monopolize what reaches the audience
When the creative director of micro blogging website, Twitter, announced the bluebird as the logo of the tech company in 2012, it was called "the ultimate representation of freedom, hope, and limitless possibility". In the last couple of years, with many controversies under its fold, it is being alleged that the representation of freedom on this platform became selective and hope and possibilities were limited by the extent of the socio-political understanding and perception of the company executives about events across the globe.
Social media is one of the most powerful mediums of dissemination of information in the twenty-first century. Its sheer, tech-based reach to millions can be used for positive reinforcement or to spread misinformation, to build false narratives. These digital platforms were like a breath of fresh air for the society when only a few could access the traditional media to express their view-points. It was like a public debate where the audience had a right to decide and choose their side.
Trouble began when these open digital platforms became conscious of their power to monopolize what reaches the audience. Published research by scholars of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows that falsehood diffused faster than truth on Twitter. A data set of rumour cascades on Twitter from 2006 to 2017 was taken and it was observed that about 126,000 rumours were spread by nearly three million people. It also observed that the effects of false news were more pronounced on political happenings than on science, natural disasters, terror, or financial information.
Nations across the globe are raising their concerns over the unrestrained pick and choose that Twitter and other Big Tech companies are doing not only with regard to the content shared on their platforms but also its reach to the users. Their rising clout while positioning themselves as non-state actors is in direct conflict with the constitutionally elected representatives of the people of a country. Former US President Donald Trump was banned by Twitter, Facebook, and others, accusing him of inciting violence at the US Capitol Hill in January, 2021 and casting aspersions on Joe Biden's presidential election win. When Trump was elected in 2016, allegations of Russian collusion were levelled against his campaign - it was later found unsubstantiated by investigations carried out by the US Senate Intelligence Committee. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives used the Twitter platform to label the 2016 elections as 'hijacked', calling for US Congress to intervene. The microblogging site did not take any action against Pelosi for questioning the integrity of the elections.
In France, an advocacy group had to move the court when Twitter resisted releasing information about tweets with racist and anti-Semitic content. The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (civil court of Paris)ordered Twitter to either face a fine or reveal the information to the French authorities through a mutually accepted mechanism. In Israel, this platform is embroiled in a controversy where it stands accused of selective blocking of tweets and suspension of accounts of political activists. Nigeria recently banned Twitter operations in the country after it not only deleted the tweet of President Muhammadu Buhari, justifying it as abusive, but also suspended his account for twelve hours.
The social fabric of sovereign nations is being challenged by big-tech virtual platforms where algorithms and machine intelligence can amplify, subdue, and hide content. The reason could be monetary as the longer the audience is glued to these platforms the larger is the revenue from advertisers, even if that is by amplifying content that promotes conspiracy and extremism. US Congressman Tom Malinowski who brought a legislation in the Congress to hold such platforms accountable by limiting their liability for the content posted by its users, argues that these algorithms are based on exploiting primal human emotions - fear, anger, and anxiety - to keep users glued to their screens, and thus regularly promote and recommend conspiracy-oriented content. The Pew Research Institute survey finds that about two-thirds of Americans (64 per cent) say that social media mostly hurts the way things are going in their country.
The dual policy of some of the Big Techs regarding the data and information of their users is also a matter of concern. Messaging applications like Whatsappareembroiled in controversies for rolling out a policy that shares its user information with the companies under the Facebook umbrella. It faced a backlash in many countries as the policy did not provide an alternative to the users to opt-out of it. Though some data-sharing with Facebook companies does take place, the questionable thing is Facebook can see the phone numbers being used on WhatsApp as also note how often the application is opened by users and the names of their mobile service providers.
The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) raised objections with the Information and Technology Minister for prohibiting Whatsapp from implementing the new privacy policy or impose a ban on it. While on the one hand Facebook wanted to share user information to generate revenue, on the other, it moved the courts to challenge the amendments - in the form of Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Codes — to the Information Technology Act, 2000 introduced in parliament. Several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed in the Delhi High Court against the changed privacy law of Whatsapp in which they are sharing the user information with others. The company in turn challenged the Indian government for introducing consumer protection amendments.
Having the largest user base of nearly 40 crore people in India, Whatsapp and Facebook need to move with a cautious business sense. Their hegemony over the virtual messaging space is already being challenged by new alternatives like Signal and Telegram.
India is witness to the cascading effect of rumours and fear-mongering during the anti-CAA and farmers' protests on social media translating into offline violence and rioting. Polarising the users by hiding and blocking tweets of a selected few on the ground that the content is harmful, sensationalising the status of social and political leaders by arbitrary removal of blue ticks of verified accounts, and resisting the law of the land translates to a foreign company being judgemental on our domestic issues.
Recently, Twitter restricted a video report on abortion laws and reproductive rights by a television channel and labelled it as 'restricted viewing' for reasons best known to them. Using free speech as their armour, Big Techs for long enjoyed immunity from content liability and redressal of grievance. Ironically, it is the freedom of expression and transparency of social media that took a beating while Big Tech hegemony created social media haves and have nots. Unfortunately, the opposition parties are also playing into the hands of such platforms. It is time that standards are defined for digital platforms to promote fair play, eliminate partisanship, protect the civil rights of the users, and promote public safety.
(The writer is Director, Non- Collegiate Women's Education Board, University of Delhi. The views expressed are personal)