Live Now: India vs Big Tech

Context: Recent government regulation to ensure accountability of the Big Tech companies has raised a question about the appropriate authority that should decide what is legitimate free speech.

Arguments in favour of Government regulation of free speech

• States are the guardians of the public interest: as they are elected by the people, so better suited for regulating the Big tech.
  • Through recent regulations, a social media post can be banned for threatening the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, public order, etc.
• To tackle threats of misinformation: Companies have the power to control the three most critical levers of modern times, data, attention and the popular narrative.
  • E.g. Motivated by the harms done by the “infodemic” of COVID untruths, misinformation during elections and the fallout from the siege of the US Capitol on January 6.
  • Against their self-interest to regulate offensive content: as they go viral more readily, bringing in more eyeballs, more data and more advertising revenue.
• Flaws in the tech industry: driven by monopolistic tendencies, asymmetry in power equation between Big tech and users, and inconsistent reaction in governing free speech.

Arguments in favour of Big techs in regulating free speech

• Idea of self-regulation: It is in their long-term interest to ensure that offensive and fake contents are pre-emptively killed.
• Market principles are more sound than flawed democracies: in market settings, there is “voting” with one’s wallet and one’s attention.
  • The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, both India (ranked 53rd ) and the US (ranked 25th) are “flawed democracies”. (thus not suitable for regulation).
  • Government’s agenda is often set by prominent personalities large social media followings. So, they have the power to promote their own viral narrative while shutting down competing ones.