“India is a country that had many requests of us around the farmers’ protest, around particular journalists that were critical of the government and it manifested in ways such as ‘we will shut Twitter down in India’, which is a very large market for us. ‘We will raid the homes of your employees’, which they did; ‘we will shut down your offices if you don’t follow suit’. And this is India, a democratic country.”
— Jack Dorsey, in an interview with the YouTube channel Breaking Points
There’s an element of wonder in Jack Dorsey’s tone as you listen to the interview where he outlines how the leading social platform that he started, Twitter, was subject to pressure by the Indian government to toe the line.
If anyone had paid the slightest attention to the events of the last eight years in India, and the systematic manner in which the central government has ridden roughshod over institutions and individual liberties, they’d be forgiven for wondering why Dorsey was even wondering.
After all, this is a nation where an 84-year-old activist, Stan Swamy, died in prison, jailed for the improbable charge of terrorism. And where a media broadcaster, BBC, was actually raided by authorities right after it carried a documentary that was believed to be critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Does the Indian government take a more-than-active interest in social media platforms? Based on my experience as a former employee with Facebook, it absolutely does. Data bears this out: In the period between July to December 2014, the social media giant received 5,473 requests for data from GoI; by July to December 2022, this number had shot up to 63,852.
Government interference could take place through multiple means, starting with official requests for data. Or, as was often the case, summary “invitations” to various ministerial and government offices were sent to the much put upon, highly stressed and harassed FB liaison team tasked with this purpose.
And that’s not counting the separate and fierce pressure from right-wing media publications or blogs. I remember being involved in multiple lively conversations with the owners of not a few of these; all seemed convinced that Facebook was involved in some sort of institutionalised conspiracy against them. Given that social media platforms have become the primary conduit of information (or misinformation) dissemination, reach and consequently, revenues, theirs is as much an economic as an ideological battle. The owner of one right-wing social media blog told me that “Facebook hated him, and was trying to destroy his business”.
For the central government though, it’s mainly a question of ideology and reach. I, therefore, find it very ironic, if not amusing, that Minister of State for Electronics and IT Rajeev Chandrasekhar has been quoted in the press as stating that Twitter was in “repeated and continuous violations of India law” and at times “weaponised misinformation”. Perhaps by “misinformation” he means anything that doesn’t conform to his party’s worldview?
On the other side of the equation, social media platforms have to contend with their own business imperatives in India. For reasons of confidentiality as a former employee of Facebook, I am unable to reveal numbers. However, I will say that in terms of volume (as opposed to dollar value) India’s population, coupled with China’s self-imposed isolation, made it, by far, the largest standalone market in the world for the social media giant. Larger than all of Europe, combined.
As a result, multinational media companies tend to be much more circumspect in India than say smaller markets like Burma or Pakistan. Dorsey can talk about his experiences freely since as an ex-owner he no longer has to play the diplomat’s role.
But social media companies in India walk a thin line between maintaining their own community standards and the increasingly strident demands of the right of centre government. The difference in positions between the two is made clear when you consider recent events. For example, BJP spokesperson Amit Malviya has accused Twitter of encouraging secessionist voices and exacerbating social fault lines.
Frankly, I find that a ridiculous, self-serving statement, given that any platform that actually does that wouldn’t last very long in today’s political and legal environments. Just consider India’s IT Rules Act 2021 — social media companies have to appoint a senior representative who is individually liable if their platform violates the law. I wonder if Malviya was talking of the recent farmers’ agitation, a democratic mass protest movement that forced the BJP into an embarrassing climb down from its hard-line stance of implementing the infamous farm laws. I believe that my opinion has largely been substantiated by Dorsey in his interview.
In the end, you can choose to take any position. What will remain unchanged is the fundamentally volatile and often hostile climate that characterises social media platforms. It’s a political truism that the more controversial you are, the more deliberately abrasive — the more successful you are likely to be in terms of social reach and influence. Just take a look at some of the so-called respected political influencers on Twitter, and their posts that show that catering to the lowest common denominator has become an art form. BJP’s IT cell leaders will, of course, know what I’m talking about.
The writer is with the Congress party. Views are personal and do not reflect those of the Congress
