Explained: How govt-Twitter fracas put IT laws, content policies in focus

Business Standard explains who can request the takedown of posts on Twitter, how they can do so, and what process the microblogging site follows before deciding to accede to the request or not

Twitter is in the middle of a storm, yet again! Earlier this week, it blocked over 250 accounts on the request of the government, only to restore them a few hours later. The accounts, according to government sources, were “using a hashtag and making fake, intimidatory and provocative tweets” and had to be blocked “to prevent any escalation of law and order in view of the ongoing farmer agitation”. Some popular accounts that were blocked included those of Communist Party of India (CPI) member Mohammad Salim, The Caravan magazine, and farmer group Kisan Ekta Morcha, besides actor and TV presenter Sushant Singh.

However, media researchers and some of the aggrieved parties whose accounts were blocked and later restored, like The Caravan magazine, asserted that their content was only ground report from farmer protest sites and that these had nothing that might inspire discord.

Now, the government is furious. It told Twitter on Wednesday that the social media platform might face legal action if it did not comply with its order asking for the accounts to be kept suspended. On Thursday, Twitter re-blocked a few accounts after a strong reaction from the government.

As the farmer crisis intensifies, provocative posts are floating left, right and centre — whether it is actor Kangana Ranaut calling protesting farmers terrorists, or the morphed picture of Barack Obama calling a meeting with Narendra Modi shameful. The current tussle is not only a test of Twitter’s content moderation policies, but also India’s present information technology rules.

Business Standard’s request for comments from Twitter India and the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology were unanswered at the time of publishing of this report.

What is Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000?

The IT Act of 2000 lays down all the rules pertaining to the use of computers, electronics and internet communication, and a part of it (section 69A) details the central government’s powers to block certain content.

The laws specify that the central government can block public access of content on computers “in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the above.”

The procedure

Where 69A lays down the parameters for blocking such content, the procedure is outlined in Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. It lays forth the process to request blocking of content from a government agency, an external organisation or the courts. In the current scenario, the government has made such a request. So, let’s look at that process.

The rule says that the government must appoint a Designated Officer, of the rank of joint secretory or above. A committee including the designated officer is formed to vet such requests for blocking of public information (the request could be internal or external) and issue orders to platforms where the information is hosted after the approval of Secretary, Department of Information Technology. In the case of an emergency, the designated officer could issue the directions for takedown without a review process. However, he or she must bring the said request before the review committee within 48 hours.

The confidentiality clause

The blocking rules state that “strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof”. This is the contentious issue. Those whose accounts are blocked are not told about the specific offence their content caused, and who made the request. That makes it impossible for them to challenge the takedown.

“The confidentiality requirement present under Rule 16 of the IT Blocking Rules creates a bizarre situation where citizens have the right to challenge blocking of online content but they are unable to do so because they don't have access to these legal orders,” noted The Internet Freedom Foundation, an internet rights group, on the issue. The government, on the other hand, argues that confidentiality is necessary to protect complainants and whistle-blowers.

It is important to note here that India is top on the list of countries that have asked Twitter to take down content in the recent past. According to Twitter’s transparency report (https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/removal-requests.html#2020-jan-jun), between January and June 2020, Twitter received 2,768 legal demands to remove content in India — a more than 274 per cent increase over the previous six-month period. Twitter complied with 13.8 per cent of those requests, according to the report.

Twitter’s content rules

Twitter says it actively takes down content which is related to violence, terrorism, child pornography, harassment, hateful conduct, self-harm, graphic content including adult content, and illegal services, as detailed here. Its algorithms scrape the trove of tweets that are posted every day and take down the ones that violate the policy. It also gives uses the ability to report posts.

The third way is through requests from local governments and law enforcement agencies. On receiving requests against malicious content, a Twitter representative may review it against statutory requirement of the land and Twitter’s own policies. It may ask the requester to furnish further context, and notify the reported account holder of the existence of a legal request, unless it is otherwise prohibited to do so. In the event the request is found satisfactory, Twitter can choose to take down the said tweet or the entire account.

However, content rules differ from country to country, and so do the application of Twitter’s content policies. Twitter’s position, as it outlines, is: “If we receive a valid and properly scoped request from an authorised entity, it may be necessary to withhold access to certain content in a particular country from time to time. Such withholdings will be limited to the specific jurisdiction that has issued the valid legal demand or where the content has been found to violate local law(s).”

The final call is taken by Twitter’s policy heads in that jurisdiction.

Catch-22

As it upholds its own policies for content and free speech, Twitter has to operate in line with the rules of the countries it operates in. In the past it has been creative in finding the balance: identity labels for political figure during US elections or labels that say that the accuracy of the certain news article is questionable. These have been initiatives to advise users to exercise discretion. But it has not been easy to avoid controversy.

In India, Twitter has long been accused of allowing derogatory, instigating and sometimes false posts by handles seen to be close to the government of the time, while cracking down heavily of voices of dissent. Twitter has so far done well to avoid confrontation with the Indian government, but it has been, at least once, called upon by a select committee to defend a “perceived bias” in implementing its policies. This time, however, the government is threatening legal action.

While Twitter’s position is that it cannot penalise accounts that did not post malicious material, including posting with the contentious hashtag #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide, the Indian government says it must abide by the directive of banning the accounts, which in the government’s opinion are posting malicious material.