Twitter wars
In today’s world, the globally interconnected internet and social media
universe has increasingly carved out its space in our lives, to the point where
if there is any interference in, or disruption of, these means of
communication, it feels to those wedded to them like an existential crisis. That
angst is at one level, but if the disruption seems deliberate or acquires a
pattern over time, questions inevitably arise as to what is happening and why. An
investigative media report informs us that over the last few weeks since the
crisis broke over Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) government’s reversal of the special status and autonomy of Indian Held
Kashmir (IHK) by repealing Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution, the
ubiquitous platform Twitter has seen some strange goings on. Internet and
social media clampdowns, monitoring and disruption are no longer unfamiliar,
particularly where undemocratic governments exist. But for Twitter itself to
get engaged in circumscribing in various ways the very idea of freedom of
expression for all that it embodies is a sinister first. In these past few
weeks, several Twitter users have complained that their accounts or tweets were
suspended or withheld for posting on IHK. The Pakistan government has listed
about 200 accounts suspended by Twitter, leading to the accusation that the
social media platform is in cahoots with India to deny Kashmiris and their
supporters the freedom to post on events in IHK and thereby silence them. Apart
from suspending accounts or withholding posts that venture onto the seemingly
‘forbidden’ turf of comment on the happenings in IHK, even President Arif Alvi
has received a notice from Twitter regarding a complaint it had received
requesting removal of his tweet on Kashmir. Although Twitter did not remove the
‘offending’ tweet, its purported ‘content moderation policy’ has thereby come
under scrutiny, since President Alvi’s does not appear to be the only case of
this kind. Although Twitter maintains that it enforces its rules and policies
judiciously and impartially regardless of users’ political views or countries
of origin, it has failed to explain why it is censoring certain accounts and
tweets, concentrated, it appears, on IHK.
Apparently unknown to most mortals, Twitter’s ‘content withheld’ tool
allows governments or ‘authorised entities’ to request Twitter to censor
content on a country-by-country basis. Twitter says it provides direct notice
of removal requests to affected users when not ‘otherwise’ prohibited, alerts
showing withheld content, and by publishing the underlying legal demands such
as court orders on Lumen, which is a repository for content removal requests. Although
this explanation still does not satisfy on the touchstone of transparency,
consistency and fairness, in the case of comments on IHK, things get even
murkier. A list of legal requests from the Indian Ministry of Electronic and Information
Technology on Lumen points to a pattern of censoring accounts belonging to
Kashmiri users or those posting in their support. The Indian government cites
Section 69A of India’s Information Technology Act 2000 against tweets it claims
are in violation of its law, after which the reported content was withheld from
access in India. However debatable it may be whether Twitter consistently follows
such laws in all cases and all countries, the conundrum does not end there. It
seems the database does not include all legal requests by India. Such
inconsistency and cherry picking application of its own rules is creating
mistrust and lack of confidence in Twitter’s reporting process and, in the
context of IHK, an understanding of the politics of the issue. As if all this
were not enough, mass reporting of Pakistani accounts, including celebrities,
which led to suspension on dubious grounds, ‘shadow banning’ (i.e. making content
undiscoverable), and even marking Indian dissidents supporting the Kashmiri
people’s cause as ‘sensitive content’ (so that it will not be visible unless
someone clicks on it), raises troubling questions about Twitter’s policies and
stances. Despite Twitter denying any political bias, its non-transparent and
contradictory actions in practice threaten to dent the credibility and
popularity of the 34 million users’ platform. It is in Twitter’s interest as
well as the interests of the freedom of expression it promises that these controversial
practices be clarified if not done away with.
No comments:
Post a Comment