Suruchi Kumari is a third-year LL.B. student at the Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, with a bachelor’s degree from Miranda House, University of Delhi.
Abstract
With technological development, enormous facilities are there at the tip of the fingers of consumers. One of the facilities is social media. However, the question is: is social media as safe as the intermediaries’ claims, and what regulations are there to manage such platforms in an effective way? This article is outlining the risks and consequences of social media. Further, while keeping the repercussions of social media in mind, the regulations are discussed.
Keywords- Regulation, platforms, intermediaries, information
Introduction
Social media is a platform for sharing ideas, interests, and other forms of expression. It is a collective term for websites that emphasises information and data sharing, communication, user cooperation, and input interaction. Social media has been used for many advantageous purposes, for example, speedy dissemination of information, educational resources, employment opportunities, marketing, and building communities. Like every coin has two sides. At present, it would be partial to conclude that social media has only advantages when the disadvantages are evident. The aforementioned benefits might result in negative circumstances the moment it is in the wrong hands and for dreadful purposes. Speedy dissemination of false information can result in perilous events; education resources are not always reliable; fraud through employment websites cannot be avoided; marketing is not always positive; and if social media is helping in building communities, it can also be responsible for causing barriers and conflicts among people. Thus, regulation of social media is utterly important.
The Types of Challenges
Hate speech or symbols
Hate speech constitutes expressions, images, memes, cartoons, gestures, and symbols that have the capacity to incite violence and create animosity against an individual or group of particular race, origin, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and veteran status. It encourages acting violently towards an individual or group against whom hate speech is targeted. Few traits are there that differentiate negative content creators on X apart from other writers.
For instance, compared to regular users or normal writers, writers who publish hostile content tend to tweet more frequently, use more detailed and non-trivial words, and have stronger connections with one another.[1]
In the Shreya Singhal case, it was held that Facebook was needed to delete any objectionable content that its users submitted. The court further stated that Facebook is required to act when it receives a related complaint.
In the U.P, a regulation has been introduced in August 2024 that constitutes punishment if such content includes anti-national, objectionable, or obscene matter.
Sale of illegal goods
Illegal and regulated goods are prohibited on social media. However, yet there are cases where illegal selling is being done. For instance, Telegram’s CEO is being held legally and personally accountable for the content the site hosted. Telegram introduced TON Space, a self-custodial wallet created by outside developers, which enables users to transmit Bitcoin, Toncoin (the native currency of Telegram), and USDT to other users. Most criminal payments use cryptocurrency and are made off-app.
Sexual abuse / harassment
Sexual abuse/harassment is done in various ways, such as sending explicit images to minors, sextortion, cyber-grooming, abusive sexting, dissemination of morphed pictures, and many more.
According to a survey held by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, 67% of abuse survivors stated that the dissemination of their images has a different impact in comparison to the hand-on abuse they faced, as distribution is a never-ending phenomenon that has the capacity to make such pictures permanent.[2]
Privacy infringement
There are enormous amounts of private data in the form of photos, posts, user profiles, interactions, likes, and shares that have the threat of being leaked. The most common types of privacy issues on social media are data sharing/mining/breach, third-party data sharing, settings issues, and having loopholes.
Facebook acknowledged and accepted in 2018 that, in 2014, an app developed by Global Science Research and Alexandr Kogan, connected to Cambridge Analytica, was able to obtain, without consent, personal information about up to 87 million Facebook users by taking advantage of their friendship connections with the users.[3]
Intellectual property violation
When a person shares the original content without having prior authorisation of the original creator, it constitutes a violation of intellectual property (IP). Not all material is available for free use and sharing, even if sharing content is the main function of the majority of social media networks. There are terms on social media to make the third party follow in relation to intellectual property.
Bullying on Social Media
Using internet channels to harass, threaten, or harm others constitutes bullying on social media. It may take many different forms, such as making derogatory posts online, distributing rumours, or sending threatening messages.
Fraud on Social Media
Social media fraud usually includes con artists who create fraudulent profiles in order to trick people. It leads to disclosing personal information or money; frauds usually pose as friends or family, commit love scams, or construct deceptive social media advertisements. Fraud through social media is one of the challenges. To reduce their chance of becoming victims, users are recommended to use strong passwords, keep their accounts private, and refrain from revealing sensitive information.
Case laws
Shrey Singhal v. Union of India[4]
The court observed that there are no intelligible differences or differences that may be comprehended. When it comes to carrying out information, there is no distinction between the internet and other media. In this historic ruling, the Supreme Court held that there is a need to repeal Section 66(A) of the Information technology Act as it infringes upon the right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and is not protected by Article 19(2), which imposes reasonable restrictions. With the terms employed in the Act, Sc claims that Section 66(A) is imprecise, open-ended, and constitutionally ambiguous. The rights to free expression, dissent, and knowledge are all violated by this provision. The court further held that the act failed to have a ‘clear and present danger test.’
Tehseen S. Poonewala v. Union of India [5]
There was an issue of whether the government should issue further directions to remove social media content that is violent. The court held that justice should not be taken into their hands by the public and noted that every citizen should stay obedient to command the law. Further court gave directions to stop the dissemination of information and must stop the circulation of destructive and careless messages on social media.
Laws regulating Social media
Constitution Of India 1950[6]
Laws related to social media can be seen in the Constitution of India 1950. Article 19(1)(a) provides freedom of speech and expression, but it is not absolute. Article 19(2) has certain restrictions.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023[7]
Similarly, aggrieved persons can avail remedies under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Electronic means have been emphazized, which was previously missing in the Indian Penal Code.
- Section 152 of BNS has added the phrases “electronic communication” and “financial means,” which are both instruments that can be used to incite secession, armed rebellion, or separatism and are punishable. It provides for similar offences mentioned in 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- Section 299 of the BNS Act replaced 295A of the IPC includes malevolent deeds done with the intent to provoke religious sentiment.
- Section 356 of BNS includes defamation, which was previously in Section 499 of IPC.
- A crucial tool in the fight against disinformation, Section 353 was adopted by the BNS. This new clause makes it illegal to knowingly produce, disseminate, or publish false information. This provision provides an extra legal tool to combat the spread of lies, supplementing other laws that address the same problem. It was previously absent from the IPC.
Regulations under Information Technology Act 2000
The main piece of legislation that provides a framework for electronic governance including social media is the Information Technology Act 2000.
In 2008, the Information Technology Act was amended to include Section 66A, where the act of sending grossly offensive information through an electronic device became a criminal offence.
Under this provision, any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.[8]
In 2018 , again there was amendment in the Information Technology Act 2000 where the 69A was included. This section provides government the power to block , monitor and intercept any information from public access which is generated, transferred, received and stored in computer.
Section 69A says
1) Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.[9]
However section 79(1) of IT Act , 2000 provides exemption to social media platforms from liability if they receive information from third parties.
It says,
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.[10]
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if–
(a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or (b) the intermediary does not–(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;(c) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.[11]
A person going by the name of “Prajwala” sent a letter to the Supreme Court in the matter of Prajwala v. Union of India & Others Non-Governmental Organisation (2018), expressing concerns about the regrettable situation involving the care and safety of children.In Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that the government needs to create appropriate and stringent regulations to prevent careless and fraudulent posts, images, and videos on social media. The Central Government created the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 in compliance with the Supreme Court’s decisions. The government enacted regulation that replaced the previous guidelines, and it aimed to control digital news sources and intermediaries.
A recent amendment was done in 2023 in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Regulations, which empowers the government to decide what information is false. The amendment expanded the power of the government to censor the information where social media intermediaries are required to remove the information that is false related to the government. However, there was indignation by news organisations to the amended standards; according to them, they are just another attempt to “muzzle the media.” The government claims that adherence to the revised restrictions is necessary to “ensure an open, safe, and trusted internet,” but the claims are not being taken seriously by those who oppose the new amendment. It was alleged that the Union government clearly wanted to have a “chilling effect” on the freedom of speech and expression on online platforms, as it was seen by its threat to remove a platform’s immunity for anything that was detected by a government unit. It seemed as the government can’t decide whether material is “fake” or “false” without allowing for judicial monitoring or an appeals process. This is because the government might abuse its authority to deny media organisations access to information or to prohibit them from questioning or scrutinising it.
Conclusion
The government is bringing laws and enacting other measures to hold social media companies more responsible for any defamatory information that is put on them. An amendment in the intermediary rules is coming as the deep fakes and bogus information circulation have grown to be a serious issue. It is true that the social media platforms are not the same as they were decades ago, and with a larger portion of people having access to these intermediaries and advanced technology, more internet offences are being committed. It is necessary to bring such amendments to keep up with changes that are brought with time.
[1] Claire E Robertson, Nicolas Pröllochs, Kaoru Schwarzenegger, Philip Pärnamets, Jay J Van Bavel, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2023.Negativity drives online news consumption.Nature Human Behaviour 7, 5 (2023), 812–822.
[2] https://content.c3p.ca/pdfs/C3P_SurvivorsSurveyExecutiveSummary2017_en.pdf accessed on 20 / 08/2024
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/04/facebook-cambridge-analytica-user-data-latest-more-than-thought accessed on 21/08/2024
[4] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0329/2015.
[5] Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and Others (2018) 9 SCC 501
[6] INDIA CONST. art. 19.
[7] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ,No. 45 of 2023, (Ind.)
[8] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 66(A) (Ind.)
[9] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 69(A) (Ind.)
[10] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 79(1) (Ind.)
[11] Id.
