1 Bad Plan: 2 Birds, 1 Stone

Context: Social media companies are not digital media companies. The new IT guidelines fail to get this fact

Need for regulating social media companies

• Shift in advertising and revenue from local news agencies to Big Tech: leading to a decline in the equity and sovereignty of news coverage.
  • From 2014 to 2020, there was a decline in global advertising on TV (33%) and newspapers(60%), while expenditure on search marketing(78%) and social media (300%) has grown.
  • In the last 15 years, 25% of US newspapers have disappeared, along with half of the jobs.
  • This sacrifices the equitable representation of a democracy’s population: resulting in vulnerable communities living in news deserts without an alternative source of credible information.
• Negative implications on society: Social media’s toxicity affects social cohesion and will result in decline of traditional and local news. (constitute explicit threats to a healthy democracy)

Problems associated with regulating digital media companies

• Fails to differentiate between social media and digital media companies: who are just content distributors, who deny responsibility for the same.
  • Most other democracies protect traditional digital media from laws directed at social media.
  • For E.g.  The Network Enforcement Act in Germany specifies that digital media ‘shall not constitute social networks within the meaning of this Act’. 
• Powers to the government: which has assumed the role of content moderator (through Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting). Implications:
  • Weakened and restricted digital media companies (local newspapers)may become mouthpieces of the local government in lieu of advertising revenues.
  • A strong and oligopolistic social media landscape, allied with the ruling establishment, can enhance government reach and amplify appropriate messages like never before.