Create Checks, Don’t Fetishise

Context: Contextualizing the position of social media as publishers and the pursuit of the right to privacy.

Background: There is a need for acknowledging the role of social media platforms as publishers and identify the weaknesses in the argument for privacy as an absolute right, which threatens society and democracy.

• Unfortunately, the recent social media intermediary guideline fall short of recognizing social media as publishers.

Why Social media should act as publishers, and not just platform:

• Not neutral regarding their users’ postings: Social media apply their own standards to censor specific posts and even bump off offensive users.
  • For e.g., the Case of Rohingyas in Myanmar, QAnon conspiracy theory (liberals run a child-trafficking operation to procure victims for sexual predation and human sacrifice).
• Editorial role: The business model requires them to sort content according to topic and orientation to make people stick around and see more ads.
• Non-universal norms: Depends upon the culture and values of the home country.
• Mindless pursuit of absolute privacy harms society and democracy: Crimes are plotted in privacy.
  • For E.g. Political opponents are trolled by anonymous handles hiding behind a curtain of privacy.

Way Forward:

• Social media as publishers: will remove the scope for a lot of arbitrary attempts at self-censorship and censorship.
  • They should be obliged to bear the responsibility that mainstream publishers have, to respect the laws of decency, libel, plagiarism, privacy and public order. This should vary from region to region.
• Balancing privacy with societal needs:
  • For e.g. offering the option of traceability; If WhatsApp messages could offer traceability, it would be easier to establish who started the Delhi riots.
  • Institute robust mechanisms to hold arms of State and political executive to account for every single breach of citizen privacy.