The Hindu Explains | Why has the government announced new guidelines to regulate digital content material?

The story to this point: On Thursday, in a long-anticipated transfer, the government notified guidelines that search to present a grievance redressal mechanism for customers of digital platforms of every kind — social media websites, messaging apps, over-the-top (OTT) streaming services, and digital information publishers. The Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 additionally mandate that social media and messaging platforms could have to adhere to new necessities in helping investigative businesses of the government. Launching the guidelines, Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad stated they had been a “soft-touch oversight” mechanism to take care of points reminiscent of the persistent unfold of faux information and different misinformation.

Broadly, what do the new guidelines require digital platforms to do?

Although there isn’t any single algorithm that uniformly applies to the completely different sorts of digital platforms, the broad themes of the guidelines revolve round grievance redressal, compliance with the legislation, and adherence to the media code. Social media platforms like Google or Facebook, or intermediaries, as an illustration, will now have to appoint a grievance officer to take care of customers’ complaints. There are extra necessities on ‘significant’ social media intermediaries — which means the platforms whose registered customers in India are above the threshold notified by the government. Such intermediaries have to appoint a ‘Chief Compliance Officer’, who could have to be certain that the guidelines are adopted; the officer “shall be liable in any proceedings relating to any relevant third-party information, data or communication link made available or hosted by that intermediary”. The intermediaries may even have to appoint a nodal contact individual for “24×7 coordination with law enforcement agencies”.

Comment | Should governments regulate online platforms?

The different key requirement is that such a social media middleman would have to “enable the identification of the first originator of the information on its computer resource” as could also be required by a judicial order. In different phrases, a problematic message, that’s thought-about “an offence related to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order, or of incitement to an offence relating to the above or in relation with rape, sexually explicit material or child sexual abuse material”, could have to be traced to its initiator on messaging purposes like WhatsApp and Signal.

For digital publishers of reports and present affairs in addition to video streaming providers, an equivalent three-tier construction for grievance redressal has been mandated. This construction will look into grievances in relation to a Code of Ethics, which is listed in the appendix to the guidelines. Among different issues, the Code of Ethics consists of the ‘Norms of Journalistic Conduct’ as prescribed by the Press Council of India, as additionally content material that shall not be printed — “content which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force shall not be published or transmitted”, and the Programme Code below the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The guidelines additionally require streaming providers to classify content material based mostly on its nature and kind. So, as an illustration, content material “for persons aged 16 years and above, and can be viewed by a person under the age of 16 years with parental guidance shall be classified as U/A 16+”.

What is the context by which these guidelines have been framed?

The query of stricter regulation of digital media has come up unceasingly in several types and boards over the previous few years. The problem got here up final yr when the Supreme Court was listening to a case involving Sudarshan TV. In the course of the case, it requested the government for options to enhance the self-regulatory mechanism for digital media. The government, in its affidavit, highlighted the want to regulate web-based media.

Editorial | Freedom and security: On social media platforms operating in India

There has additionally been a face-off between the government and Twitter in current weeks over the social media platform’s non-compliance with its order to block a number of hashtags and handles of journalists, activists and politicians in the backdrop of the ongoing farmers’ protests. Twitter ultimately complied, although not absolutely.

Questions about how social media platforms might be made accountable for the unfold of faux information and pornographic content material have been raised in Parliament and by the Supreme Court in recent times, one thing that has been highlighted by the government in its launch as nicely. Taking all this under consideration, it was no shock that such guidelines had been being envisaged, however critics have stated a few of these guidelines will lead to restriction of free speech. There have been many controversies involving content material on over-the-top platforms. In one such current incident, two BJP leaders filed a case against the makers of Tandav for hurting spiritual sentiments. There have been calls to censor content material that seems on digital platforms.

What has modified from earlier?

The scope of regulation of the digital area has been expanded. The new guidelines not solely exchange the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, however go a step additional. They additionally regulate digital information publishers and streaming providers, which was not the case earlier. The 2011 guidelines had been a narrower set of guidelines for intermediaries.

Also learn | Provision for blocking content under new IT rules not new: Centre

Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, the intermediaries will not be accountable for user-generated content material, offered they adhere to the guidelines — “an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him,” it states. These guidelines have been tightened now.

Why are the guidelines being criticised?

For digital information media, these guidelines will topic it to governmental regulation in a method. The three-tier construction of regulation will entail oversight by a government committee at the highest degree. Any grievance that doesn’t get satisfactorily solved at the self-regulatory ranges will get escalated to the government panel. The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), a digital liberties organisation, refers to this as “excessive governmental control over digital news and OTT content”.

The different rule that has been criticised by the IFF is the requirement of traceability of the originator of a problematic message. The information guidelines do counsel that this is not going to be required “where other less intrusive means are effective in identifying the originator of the information”. They additionally counsel that in figuring out the originator, “no significant social media intermediary shall be required to disclose the contents of any electronic message”. But the IFF reckons that the government has powers below the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009, to make calls for for the content material of the messages. The guidelines have additionally been criticised for rising the potential for censorship and surveillance.