Policy

India’s social media crackdown could go global

Experts warn India's limits on tech giants could spread if the U.S. and other countries don't do more to stop it.

A blurry photo of a person's mouth, with the space of the mouth erased

Digital rights experts worry that the world could soon be heading for more speech restrictions

Image: NOTAVANDAL/Protocol

A rising clash in India between social media companies and the government, which increasingly demands content censorship, could signal a spreading crackdown on speech by other countries, digital rights groups and international tech policy experts warn.

Tensions between the government of the world's second-most populous country and firms such as Facebook and Twitter have been increasing in India since February, when Indian regulators unveiled rules requiring the takedown of a wide array of content, including certain threats to "public order," within 36 hours of a government demand.

India's government in April ordered about 100 posts, many of them critical of the government's handling of COVID-19, be removed from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, in accordance with both the new policies and prior regulation. Delhi police also reportedly visited Twitter's offices in May after the platform placed a "manipulated media" warning label to a tweet from a spokesperson for the ruling party, and WhatsApp has reportedly sued the government over requirements to monitor content.

It could be just the beginning of a process that solidifies internet restrictions in coming years. Many experts see limits on content spreading to other countries from major markets like India thanks to the tendency of governments to imitate each other's regulations — particularly when they share a desire to dampen criticism or curb online harms, and when the companies know that defending users' free speech could prove costly.

Policy spreads

The ways in which India developed its rules demonstrate the point, experts and advocates said. India's current policy, which requires that "significant social media" companies have a local company official be personally liable for compliance, arose in part from increasingly authoritarian and protectionist tendencies of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party. But India was not the first; other governments have also passed regulations relating to social media. Germany, for example, adopted rules in 2017 that subject platforms to fines if they fail to remove "obviously illegal" speech within a day of a report — rules that provided an important model and show how regulations can jump from country to country.

"What Germany did by passing that law is it signaled globally you should take action," said Raman Jit Singh Chima, the Delhi-based Asia policy director for the international digital rights organization Access Now.

Chima said other countries that want to respond to concerns about tech or advance their political agendas online will now likely look into similar measures, treating India's rules as the new baseline to copy.

"What they do is they say, 'We're looking for some language, for a template we can adapt,'" Chima explained, adding that nearby Nepal and Bangladesh have previously considered rules highly similar to ones in India.

India is hardly alone: In addition to Germany, digital rights advocates have raised concerns about laws and proposals in a mix of relatively free and blatantly authoritarian nations such as the U.S., U.K., China, Singapore, Russia, Turkey and others. Yet as the world's largest democracy by population, India can bring great commercial pressure to companies that have sought global growth even as they insisted they were global defenders of free speech.

Companies such as Facebook and Twitter "are not human rights organizations," said David Kaye, the former United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. "They're businesses that want to make a boatload of money, and India's the largest market out there for them."

Platforms' existing power and reach, their desire to grow with India's population of 1.3 billion and a need to follow local law consequently permit governments to potentially limit a great deal of criticism with just a little pressure on a handful of firms, Kaye noted.

"The companies play this outsized role in public debate, freedom of expression, the flow of access to information," said Kaye, now a professor at the University of California Irvine's school of law. "Because of that, when they adhere to local law, they can also be joining forces in a way with government repression of human rights."

Splintering internet

Particularly when it comes to content regulation, where social media sites already impose their own rules, companies have incentives to limit speech when it's merely controversial, rather than illegal, in one or more major markets. Filtering and monitoring systems for billions of pieces of content can already be expensive, and having to face divergent or vague rules across a worldwide network can exacerbate the cost and complexity.

Facebook and others have, for instance, extended similar political ad rules to several countries following efforts in the U.S. and elsewhere, while European hate speech rules often parallel the platforms' own policies. Beyond content regulation, many companies have also streamlined their privacy programs across multiple countries after Europe's GDPR rules required an update in several major markets.

"The platforms' lives are easier if they apply a single set of rules around the world," said Daphne Keller, who directs the program on platform regulation at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center. "The very cheapest thing would be to use their terms of service to prohibit a superset of everything that's illegal in any country."

Keller and others don't necessarily see a global spread of such intense censorship as a likely endpoint, but worry nonetheless about spreading restrictions on speech. They worry too about the possibility that the internet could become more fragmented, with major markets such as the U.S., EU, China and India setting the terms for billions of users at a time within their own borders and political spheres. The internet may theoretically have begun as a nearly utopian system of worldwide connection and commerce, but in this splintering, some regions would have severe restrictions, and services might not work or allow easy communications among various parts of the world.

Many of the experts who spoke with Protocol conceded that a completely free-wheeling internet isn't necessarily desirable, either as a matter of public policy or for users who hope to enjoy social media environments. The digital space is already rife with terrorism, child exploitation, drugs, threats of violence, election meddling, scams, defamation, health misinformation, bullying, hatred against almost every group of people imaginable, offenses to local morality and more — what Keller calls "the full range of human misbehavior," sometimes organized to create massive harm in the real world.

To respond to this reality, narrowly-tailored content rules that aim to curb illegal speech, allow for transparency around government and company decisions and provide redress for abuses are far less problematic than broad limits that amount to giving the government the power to secretly suppress criticism, digital rights experts said. They added that regulations that aim to bring more data privacy or competition might also be wise or necessary policy.

Time's running out

There's mounting evidence that the companies themselves think India has gone too far in clamping down on dissent. In addition to WhatsApp's lawsuit, Twitter went public with its concerns about the law and what it called "potential threat to freedom of expression."

"We, alongside many in civil society in India and around the world, have concerns with regards to the use of intimidation tactics by the police in response to enforcement of our global Terms of Service, as well as with core elements of the new IT Rules," the company said, adding that it planned "to advocate for changes to elements of these regulations that inhibit free, open public conversation."

In addition, Twitter is not yet in full compliance with the rule, according to a report in TechCrunch.

Still, many advocates said the social media companies have largely failed to send any consistent signals about what kinds of policies they would accept and which they would fight back against or even flout entirely. Countries with more robust human rights institutions have also done little to press other countries to avoid censorship and highly restrictive rules, the advocates say.

Indeed, advocates say, the best chance for global free discourse online may come down to the U.S. and EU somehow finding a way to respond together to countries that threaten to silence political critics online. Although the U.S. has been slow to settle on an approach to content policy, and some of its own proposals have come under criticism from human rights groups, it could ideally join with the EU to set more liberal approaches emphasizing free speech, transparency, due process and the rule of law even as it seeks to tackle illegal speech or prompt platforms to rein in the most egregious harms.

"I wish frankly that the U.S. would step up a bit more," said Katie Harbath, a former public policy director at Facebook.

The time may be running out to do so. Harbath said there may only be a few years to come to a consensus before "huge geopolitical moments" determine who will be in power in world governments with major stakes in global tech debates. In 2024 alone, she noted, elections are scheduled or expected for the U.S., the EU parliament, India, Indonesia, Taiwan and other countries.

"It's between now and 2024 where I think the die is going to be cast in one way or the other," she said. "I don't think we as a society are ready for what that is going to bring."

Workplace

You need a healthy ‘debate culture’

From their first day, employees at Appian are encouraged to disagree with anyone at the company — including the CEO. Here’s how it works.

Appian co-founder and CEO Matt Calkins wants his employees to disagree with him.

Photo: Appian

Matt Calkins often hears that he’s polite, even deferential. But as CEO of Appian, he tells employees to challenge each other — especially their bosses — early and often.

“I love arguments. I love ideas clashing,” Calkins said. “I regard it as a personal compliment when someone respectfully dissents.”

Keep Reading Show less
Allison Levitsky
Allison Levitsky is a reporter at Protocol covering workplace issues in tech. She previously covered big tech companies and the tech workforce for the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Allison grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Berkeley.

Some of the most astounding tech-enabled advances of the next decade, from cutting-edge medical research to urban traffic control and factory floor optimization, will be enabled by a device often smaller than a thumbnail: the memory chip.

While vast amounts of data are created, stored and processed every moment — by some estimates, 2.5 quintillion bytes daily — the insights in that code are unlocked by the memory chips that hold it and transfer it. “Memory will propel the next 10 years into the most transformative years in human history,” said Sanjay Mehrotra, president and CEO of Micron Technology.

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

Gopuff says it will make it through the fast-delivery slump

Maria Renz on her new role, the state of fast delivery and Gopuff’s goals for the coming year.

Gopuff has raised $4 billion at a $15 billion valuation.

Photo: Gopuff

The fast-delivery boom sent startups soaring during the pandemic, only for them to come crashing down in recent months. But Maria Renz said Gopuff is prepared to get through the slump.

“Gopuff is really well-positioned to weather through those challenges that we expect in the next year or so,” Renz told Protocol. “We're first party, we control elements of our mix, like price, very directly. And again, we have nine years of experience.”

Keep Reading Show less
Sarah Roach

Sarah (Sarahroach_) writes for Source Code at Protocol. She's a recent graduate of The George Washington University, where she studied journalism and criminal justice. She served for two years as editor-in-chief of GW's independent newspaper, The GW Hatchet. Sarah is based in New York, and can be reached at sroach@protocol.com

Enterprise

AT&T CTO: Challenges of the cloud transition are interpersonal

Jeremy Legg sat down with Protocol to discuss the race to 5G, the challenges of the cloud transition and nabbing tech talent.

AT&T CTO Jeremy Legg spoke with Protocol about the company's cloud transition and more.

Photo: AT&T

Jeremy Legg is two months into his role as CTO of AT&T, and he has been tasked with a big mandate: transforming the company into a software-driven business, with 5G and fiber as core growth areas.

This isn’t Legg’s first CTO gig, just his biggest one. He’s an entertainment biz guy who’s now at the center of the much bigger, albeit less glamorous, telecom business. Prior to joining AT&T in 2020, Legg was the CTO of WarnerMedia, where he was the technical architect behind HBO Max.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Workplace

How Canva uses Canva

Design tips and tricks from the ultimate Canva pros: Canva employees themselves.

Employees use Canva to build the internal weekly “Canvazine,” product vision decks, team swag and more.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Ever wondered how the companies behind your favorite tech use their own products? We’ve told you how Spotify uses Spotify, How Slack uses Slack and how Meta uses its workplace tools. We talked to Canva employees about the creative ways they use the design tool.

The thing about Canva is that it's ridiculously easy to use. Anyone, regardless of skill level, can open up the app and produce a visually appealing presentation, infographic or video. The 10-year-old company has become synonymous with DIY design, serving as the preferred Instagram infographic app for the social justice “girlies.” Still, the app has plenty of overlooked features that Canvanauts (Canva’s word for its employees) use every day.

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

Latest Stories
Bulletins