US Media Companies Engaging In Proactive Censorship Of Content Ahead Of India's New Hate Speech Laws
from the proxy-censorship-really-isn't-an-improvement-over-direct-censorship dept
India's government is still seeking more direct control of the internet, using ill-defined buzzwords ("hate speech," "fake news") as justification for broken encryption and holding tech companies directly responsible for content created by users. The Indian government may have passed and killed a "fake news" law in the space of 24 hours, but the term lives on as a useful enabler for censorship.
New rules proposed by the Indian government to rein in tech giants and combat fake news could have a profoundly chilling effect on free speech and privacy online. The proposed changes involve Section 79 of the IT Act, a safe harbor protection for internet “intermediaries” that’s akin to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US. Current law protects intermediaries such as internet service providers and social media platforms from liability for the actions of their users until they are made aware of a particular post; intermediaries also must only censor content when directed by a court.
The proposed amendments attempt to curb the spread of misinformation on platforms like Facebook and Twitter by effectively forcing internet companies to censor a broad swath of user content. They also require secure messaging services like WhatsApp to decrypt encrypted data for government use, which could affect the security of users around the globe. The rules also would require internet companies to notify users of their privacy policies monthly.
Just the threat of government intervention has been enough to turn a number of US companies into proactive censors. As Paris Martineau notes in this Wired article, Netflix and a number of other streaming services have already voluntarily agreed to engage in self-censorship, purging their Indian offerings of content that "disrespects the country's flag," "hurts religious sentiments," or promotes terrorism.
Netflix's justification for self-censorship is apparently that this is somehow better than direct government censorship. But this justification makes no sense, especially when proactive measures tend to remove more content than is actually illegal. Add in some automation and legal content is going to get flagged and removed faster than the Indian government can issue self-serving removal requests.
The government's timetable on content removal only adds to the problem. The Indian government wants content it finds illegal removed within 24 hours of notification. Short turn times -- seen elsewhere in the world -- have increased proactive takedowns by internet companies, resulting in far more content removals than are strictly necessary.
Not that these governments are complaining. Bogus takedowns aren't their problem, beyond the occasional courtroom dispute over mistakenly-removed content. At this point, governments need only threaten to put direct censorship in place to start seeing content these governments don't like removed.
India's plan introduces compromised encryption to the mix, which would set a dangerous precedent if companies like WhatsApp comply. If it can be done in India, it can be done anywhere, and a long list of government entities frustrated that they don't have access to every domestic online conversation will see this as an invitation to make similar demands. And once the floodgates are opened halfway around the world, it's going to be tough to argue you can't do the same thing in your home country.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, encryption, free speech, hate speech, india, intermediary liability, it act, misinformation, section 79
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
hmm
What if my religion condemns censorship (of any kind) as an act of terrorism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hmm
Having an unfavorable opinion about a belief-system isn't bigoted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmm
So then are you also an employee (offical or otherwise) of a major government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hurt us.'
As Paris Martineau notes in this Wired article, Netflix and a number of other streaming services have already voluntarily agreed to engage in self-censorship, purging their Indian offerings of content that "disrespects the country's flag," "hurts religious sentiments," or promotes terrorism.
Last I checked most flags aren't capable of feeling disrespect, and anyone pathetic enough that 'insulting' the flag of their country is actually seen as a serious problem is already demonstrated a skin so thin that you wouldn't even need an x-ray to see through it, such that saying mean things about a bit of cloth is the least of their problems.
Likewise with 'religious sentiments', as I see anything along the lines of 'blasphemy' as little less than an admission that the people decrying such 'crimes' are under the impression that their beliefs are so laughably weak that they can't stand even mild criticism and/or questioning. That someone saying something mean is enough to bring it all crumbling down, as though it was beyond weak from the get-go.
Ironically enough, by rushing to 'protect' their flag and/or religion they instead do more damage to the image of both than anyone else could, by portraying one or both of them as beyond weak, able to be harmed by something as mild as words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hurt us.'
Every religion and country on the planet was started with nothing more than words.
Every religion and country on the planet that no longer exists was defeated by words.
Flags are iconography. Just like crucifixes, the Star of David, etc.
For a post on a blog dedicated to free speech, I find it surprising that you don't seem to have a concept of the power of words.
Even "mild" ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hurt us
Every religion and country on the planet was started with nothing more than words.
Every religion and country on the planet that no longer exists was defeated by words.
Plus or minus a few other things, like people, resources, massive amounts of effort up to and including willing to kill/die for their belief/cause in many cases, sure.
For a post on a blog dedicated to free speech, I find it surprising that you don't seem to have a concept of the power of words.
Words have power only to the extent that people give them power, and while some have more potential impact than others ('Kill the heretic' vs 'Let's get lunch'), barring extreme cases(see again: 'Kill the heretic') I'll take more free speech, even if some of it is offensive, than less.
If a country can fall by nothing more than disrespect towards a piece of cloth, it was a joke from the start and did not deserve respect.
If 'hurting religious sentiments' is enough to bring a religion down, it too was pathetic and hollow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even w
Nope. They're not getting out and starting a new religion while sewing a flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hur
This is in response to this whole comment branch:
Words have power. Can be significant, but how? why?
The power words have is actually the power of communities (and individuals). Words can trigger, direct and focus this power usually by the communication of ideas.
Bamboo Harvester is correct, but this does not truly invalidate OP's (That One Guy) comment. A common reason for suppressing broad categories of speech is to keep ideas from triggering communal power and harming power structures.
'Beliefs' is the wrong focus. It is the power structures built around beliefs that is the issue. Even sincere, reasonable beliefs can be connected to people/organizations who are corrupted somehow, and are then fearful of the potential comeuppance.
BTW, in a society, it is good to have power broadly seeded amongst its membership; this helps prevent any corruption by any subgroup from getting out of hand (we can all be tempted, but by different things, hopefully). [You also need some "higher faith" to prevent a coalescing around shared self-destructive attitudes.]
;tldr
Suppressing speech can be a Bubble Sustaining Mechanism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words
Almost. The power words have is how communities are formed - a person has an idea and expresses it through language to others. Those like-minded (or gullible enough) flock together forming a community.
Words work not only to communicate ideas, but to discredit other ideas.
Which is why missionaries don't ask "have you felt the power of god" but instead ask "Have you heard the WORD of god". Implies their god has better ideas than your god...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hur
What created God?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words
Chicken and egg? How silly is this argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words
Actually it's almost exactly the other way around. Science sprung from religion, specifically from the Judeo-Christian tradition and its unique doctrine of linear progression, as opposed to the near-universal understanding in the pagan world of the nature of existence being cyclical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix joins mpaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We hate speech that disrespects our flag."
"We hate speech that disrespects our religion."
"We hate speech that we arbitrarily decide is something promoting terrorism."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But, as I said in the post you're replying to, who gets to define it for others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Respect is earned and can be lost. Some claim this is disrespect - ok, but do not try to say that this loss of respect is to be criminalized when heads of state or other rich influential people get their feelings hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What feedoms should be permitted to persons or companies?
"If you dont want your government to do stupid stuff, watch it and get involved".
India can make whatever laws they like, and if some streaming company wants to pre-filter their content so that they are ready to continue to participate in that market before the law comes into effect, why cant they do that?
Country Y wants to enforce shitty encryption (remember export standards?) they can do that too. If a foreign company wants to comply to ensure continued market access, then shucks.
Yes, there can be trends. But, it all comes down to the first point. You have a right to influence your own government. Start there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]