Currently, users only receive the message ‘Thank you for sending your complaint, we will get back to you’ from these platforms. The objective of the GAC is to address the unresolved grievances.
Currently, users only receive the message ‘Thank you for sending your complaint, we will get back to you’ from these platforms. The objective of the GAC is to address the unresolved grievances.
Minister of State for Electronics and IT Rajiv Chandrashekhar said that the latest amendment in the IT rules imposes an obligation on social media companies to take a certain precaution so that no illegal content or misinformation is posted on their platforms. He also clarified that the new rules do not strengthen the government’s power to moderate content on the Internet, while the government’s intention is to work with middlemen, not adversaries. Part:
A major criticism is that the Complaints Appeal Committee (GAC) will give the government more powers in content moderation…
There are two issues we are focusing on – security and trust and accountability. Earlier, under due diligence, intermediaries only had to circulate about users not uploading certain categories of harmful/illegal content. There was no enforcement. We have changed this, to say that not only will intermediaries inform and publish, but also the reason why these things do not happen and that we have included misinformation (in content categories).
So now there is a definite obligation on the part of the moderator on the content moderation. They have to do this. If they miss something, when someone informs them, it has to be deleted within 72 hours. There is no other moderation of the content. GAC doesn’t come into the picture at all.
The person who tells that there is misinformation is not the government, it can be anyone… so content moderation is not an issue that is going to come up in the GAC. All non-content related issues come under GAC… account block/hack etc.
Currently, users only receive the message ‘Thank you for sending your complaint, we will get back to you’ from these platforms. The objective of the GAC is to address the unresolved grievances.
GAC is really a disincentive for not continuing its status quo for grievance redressal to the middlemen… I have enough work… Everyone in the ministry is working hard… Role of an Ombudsman for Internet to perform. This is not our primary goal. But we are compelled to do so due to lack of progress in the last one year.
This is not an area the government wants to enter. We are doing this very reluctantly because we have an obligation and a duty to digital citizens to have someone listen to their complaints; If not the platform, at least the government needs it.
So intermediaries need to verify whether the content is factual?
Intermediaries will need to verify this and 72 hours is enough time to verify.
If not enough information is available they should take it down. We have done a detailed study and found that the velocity and acceleration of the flow of misinformation is 8-10 times faster than any regular information and it reaches a wider audience.
To be honest, I believe 72 hours is too long. There was a proposal to make it 24 hours but during the consultation it was widely felt that it is early days, so keep it at 72 and then progressively bring it down as the platforms and intermediates gain capacity and capability. I would urge all intermediaries that where the letter of the rule says 72 hours, the spirit should be as fast as possible.
You will also meet middlemen. What is the agenda?
I don’t want things to be unfavourable. It is not just about regulating middlemen. It is about a shared vision of how we access a secure and reliable internet. This (guideline) is our view. This approach takes into account all kinds of consultancies including industry. Yes, it’s not as good as there is no regulation, but the era of no rules is over. This is absolutely justified. This is a very real expectation from middlemen and our attitude towards middlemen is that we are partners.
The Government of India, the middlemen and the Digital Citizen (Citizens) are the three stakeholders in building this trillion-dollar value digital economy and the underlying Internet that is a secure and reliable Internet.
The rules now also refer to the publication of arbitral rules in regional languages.
Look, we should have internet, especially this kind of stuff is available in all languages. All 120 crore Indians, they are not all English and Hindi. That’s why we want it in all languages. But, we are not saying that it has to happen tomorrow. We are indicating through this rule that it is a multilingual internet and inclusion in the internet is a very important objective.
You talked about looking at the new rules as a partnership with the industry. But is this being done reciprocally by the industry?
I am working on it. We did extensive public consultation with the industry. We set a time limit of 72 hours to remove the content instead of 24 hours… They said we don’t want GAC, we want a Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO). He said this in March and I told him that if you come up with an SRO, I will include the SRO in these amended rules. We waited at least two months. I could do these rules two months ago. But the industry did not come up with an SRO.
Even today, if the industry tomorrow comes up with a viable SRO that has consumer participation, industry participation, government involvement and is different from the first level of grievance redressal, we are happy to see it.
The intention of this government is to work with middlemen. The rules aren’t about making it difficult for anyone or targeting a company. We don’t want to fall into the kind of tired narrative that we are healing people. We are not correcting anyone. We have a clearly defined vision of how to make the Internet safe and reliable and we are motivating people to join us. And it is win-win.
A secure and reliable internet means they too have to grow and receive more investment. It should indeed be a collective mission for all stakeholders of the Internet to make the Internet secure, reliable, and to establish the principle of accountability between intermediaries and consumers, while keeping alive its virtues of openness.
Will the government even consider the penalty?
Our approach to jurisprudence and the evolving laws. We would like it to be a partnership between the government and the middlemen. If it requires further amendment of the rules, we will not hesitate to do so. We did not make GAC mandatory in May 2021.
In good faith, we thought that the middlemen would automatically understand by appointing a Grievance Redressal Officer that the officer has to address the grievances and there is no symbolism in that… we are compelled to have a GAC.
We have millions of messages from citizens and digital citizens whose complaints have not been answered, apart from either saying that we have received your complaint, thank you for sending your complaint or no response. And this is not acceptable to us.
Only as a last resort, we will resort to the inclusion of penalties.