New Delhi: The government has no intention of treating influencers and independent content creators on social media platforms as publishers and is openly considering views on modifying, clarifying various clauses and even scrapping the proposed amendment to India’s rules for social media intermediaries, a top bureaucrat said at a press roundtable at the Ministry of Electronics and IT (Meity) office.
During Tuesday, Meita Secretary S Krishnan met stakeholders from the Indian internet and social media industry, public policy and civil society advocates and the media at Electronics Niketan, Meita’s home turf. The consensus at the end of the day, Krishnan said, is to extend the timetable for public consultation on the amendment and take into account all the views received by the ministry on Tuesday.
Multiple parties have expressed their concerns about how the amendment will work, he said. “Some parties have expressed the view that this amendment is not needed and should be removed entirely, while others have expressed concerns about specific clauses in the amendment that need clarification.” Some stakeholders requested that the public consultation phase be extended by two weeks or more; it will be decided, he added.
Read also | Social media ruling the US: Are Instagram and YouTube under threat in India?
The draft Second Amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediate Guidelines and Digital Media Code of Ethics) Rules, 2021, released on March 30, 2021 — popularly called the IT Rules — suggested that any clarification, recommendation or notice issued by the government would be required to be followed.
The amendment also proposed to bring in general users who independently create and publish content social media platforms under the same lens as news publishers in terms of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s ability to block such users posting “news and current affairs” content.
Overreach solution
At the time, public advisers and civil rights advocates widely publicized criticism of the amendment, arguing that the proposed regulation could drastically expand government overreach and threaten free speech on public platforms.
Cross-party protests have occurred at least twice in the past two years, with political and free speech advocates in each case highlighting government overreach. In February 2024, the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill 2024 faced widespread opposition for cracking down on freedom of information on public platforms. In October, Meita’s draft AI rules also drew criticism over how content is tagged and identified on social media platforms.
In response to these concerns, Krishnan said that “it was not intended to treat publishers and non-publishers as the same… If there is a concern, we will certainly address the same.”
The bureaucrat said the proposed amendment was tabled to clarify compliance issues raised by the social media intermediaries themselves.
Read also | Karnataka wants to ban U-16 access to social media; industry, experts skeptical
“In many cases, when an intermediary is called in to be questioned about certain content, the original users who posted and disseminated the content are often missing. We are trying to address these concerns and the amendment does not change the way content blocking orders under sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act are implemented,” Krishnan said.
He also added that in order to make the councils mandatory social media companies, hitherto non-committal in nature, are also “clear in nature”.
Industrial resistance
“Many social media companies have highlighted and highlighted issues where they are unsure whether to follow the advice that is being issued in specific cases or continue to just follow the existing rules. The current advice is just trying to clarify this, but we are open to understanding views on how best to ensure compliance with all laws.”
However, Krishnan did not say on record whether there was a specific discussion with any prominent social media influencer after which the amendment was tabled. He also claimed that “there are no current discussions or intentions to divide or define specific kinds of content, other than the current definitions of news and current affairs as provided by law.”
Meanwhile, industry stakeholders continued to reject the amendment. Meta and YouTube, which operate India’s largest social media proxies and were also present at Tuesday’s meetings, offered no statements on the current discussions.
“The amendments suggested at the meeting do not fundamentally alter the illegality or censorship impact of the proposed changes. We have enshrined this position in the framework of the IT Act 2000 and existing patterns of opaque rule-based censorship that operate without any meaningful respect for the principles of natural justice,” said Apar Gupta, founding director of public policy, Internet Advocacy.
Read also | Tech giants are turning to influencers to build a “good place to work” brand on social media.
Gupta was one of the parties who attended the meeting with Krishnan on Tuesday and called for the repeal of the amendment.
Krishnan, however, argued that the amendment was not against the principles of natural justice, a point raised by Gupta. For now, Meity is going to extend the period for consultations on the amendment, which is set to expire on April 14.
