Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter Face New Rules in India (wsj.com) 20
India is establishing new rules to govern internet firms like Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter, [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source] a fresh challenge for the American giants in a huge market that is key to their global expansion. From a report: The new guidelines, unveiled Thursday, say that in order to counter the rise of problematic content online like false news and violent material, intermediaries must establish "grievance redressal mechanisms" to resolve user complaints about postings and share with the government the names and contact details for "grievance officers" at the firms. These officers must acknowledge complaints within a day and resolve them within 15. Social media firms must take down material involving explicit sexual content within 24 hours of being flagged. Firms must also appoint officers and contact people -- who live in India -- to coordinate with law enforcement agencies and address complaints. Some firms must also help identify the "first originator" of some messages, the rules say. "We appreciate the proliferation of social media in India," Ravi Shankar Prasad, India's minister of electronics and information technology, said Thursday. "We want them to be more responsible and more accountable," he said.
The rules are New Delhi's latest move to assert control over global tech firms that have experienced breakneck growth in a country of more than 1.3 billion. The regulations also come during monthslong farmers' protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government, which have sparked fierce debate on social media. They have emerged as Mr. Modi's stiffest political challenge since he assumed power in 2014. The rules say the government can implement a code of ethics for digital media and so-called over-the-top platforms, a term applied to video streaming services like Netflix.
The rules are New Delhi's latest move to assert control over global tech firms that have experienced breakneck growth in a country of more than 1.3 billion. The regulations also come during monthslong farmers' protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government, which have sparked fierce debate on social media. They have emerged as Mr. Modi's stiffest political challenge since he assumed power in 2014. The rules say the government can implement a code of ethics for digital media and so-called over-the-top platforms, a term applied to video streaming services like Netflix.
Re:Bah (Score:4, Interesting)
This was first done in Turkey (in the process of being deployed), in the Russian parliament in first reading at the moment, in the legislation queue in India and so on.
Do we like it or not - the internet or what you called "The Internet" is run on advertiser's money. If that money stops flowing all major player demonstrate lighting speeds in achieving full compliance.
By the way, this hits multinationals too. Fords, Coca-Colas, Pepsicos and their ilk always have a local branch, a local officer and a local franchise. So even if Facebook gets any funky ideas of "shrugging it" and allowing HQ to post ads instead, they will nail the local branch. Literally in some cases.
Your meaningful Subject here! (Score:1)
I think you make some good points, but I'm going to dismiss your comment as troll tainted.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a classic and unfortunate case of the prisoners' dilemma. This is horribly bad for the internet in the long run. And if the tech industry could get its shit together and do a unified embargo against these thugs... as suggested by Asimov with the Foundation's embargoes against Anacreon and Korell... we'd all be better off in the long run. Unfortunately, there's a lot of short-term profit to motivate an individual company to capitulate; to the detriment of tech and the internet as a whole, the their
New economic model for journalism? (Score:1)
Did you see a blip? Me neither.
My initial reaction is that this is like steering the car from the back seat. Rather than creating a constructive business model to fund good journalism, the governments are mostly creating a penalty system for bad journalism. However the more I think about it, the more I like it, even if I didn't think of it first. (My favored 'negative' approach would instead focus on penalizing the reputations of the sources of fake news with a MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputatio
That won't work (Score:2)
End of an Era (hopefully) (Score:2)
While I expect a lot of the IANAL Free Speech supporters will disagree with me. However, News Sites and Aggregators have a responsibility to moderate and censor information that they provide on their sites, especially as they often include Ad's that will profit them on the same page. Over the past decade especially, we have seen Social Media Sites degrade its content from just a random post from a friend, to conspiracy theories and propaganda, Sometime being pulled off by the Inelegance wing of a foreign
Re: (Score:2)
If I had a mod point...
Basically I think I agree with you, but this solution approach is fundamentally negative, focusing on the harms of fake news. On that basis I'm not as optimistic as you seem to be because I think the gamesters will just devise new and more diabolical ways to do damage. And as regards the "free speech" fanatics, I think most of them are too confused about the meaning of "free", especially as regards who's paying. Some free speech can be quite expensive, especially if you think democrat
Re: (Score:1)
Similar to NSA in USA (Score:1)
Because they object to outsourcing? (Score:1)
"Firms must also appoint officers and contact people -- who live in India" Because India is completely opposed to outsourcing?
It would be poetic justice if white trash from the Southern US turned out to be cheaper to hire than Indian censors, so all the work was outsourced to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The current practice (till recently) was for Facebook, Twitter, etc to try to shrug this off. In fact, Twitter went as far as to try to show the European Commission the finger when it first came out.
They have grudgingly appointed local officers and have local branches in major jurisdictions like the Eu, but still show finger to lesser ones. Or to be more exact - were showing until the Turks figured this out a few months b
Hypocrites will come (Score:1)
Re: no ur uh hypocrite (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Go read the first amendment again. Trump was not protected from being kicked off social media as they are not Gov. entities. He doesn't have a 1st Amendment right to tweet nor to post conspiracies on Facebook. CNN and other media still cover him and he's speaking at CPAC this weekend. He has a voice, just not on the networks of Twitter, Facebook, and whatnot.
Re: (Score:2)
And big tech will have to follow the legislation in India and other countries where they are not protected by the first amendment either. Foreign countries will not accept that US big tech determines elections and influences national discourse. They will be regulated heavily now that they have shown their will to do that.
That is a prediction that I don’t look forward to but given the current development I believe it is unavoidable. It will take some time but 5-10 years from now their power will be str
Re: (Score:1)
Are government officials excluded? (Score:2)
I can see government officials submitting “grievances” in order to silence critics.