Content Moderation Case Study: Twitter Temporarily Locks Account Of Indian Technology Minister For Copyright Violations (2021)
from the copyright-underpins-so-much dept
Summary: In late June 2021, Twitter briefly suspended the account of Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Indian government's Technology Minister because his content violated copyright. Although Prasad was given a copy of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown request, he posted a short Twitter thread that claimed this moderation action was Twitter silencing him, rather than simply responding to a takedown notice targeting alleged copyright violations.
According to Prasad, the removal of his tweets and brief suspension were the result of him not aligning himself with Twitter's "agenda." He claimed Twitter would "arbitrarily" do the same to others who did not "tow the line that they draw."
Prasad also claimed the takedown via DMCA notice violated Indian law. Specifically, the Technology Minister claimed Twitter violated local law by failing to provide him with prior notice before locking him out of his account. The law cited was Rule 4(8) of the Information Technology Rules 2021.
Prasad's pushback against Twitter's decision to suspend his account based on claims of copyright violations came after weeks of Indian government officials' public criticism of American social media companies. Shortly after this critique, the new Information Technology Rules law went into effect on May 26, 2021.
The new law affects multiple US social media platforms. It requires them to remove certain content within 24 hours of notification and forces them to set up local offices in India where complaints can be handled by newly-created compliance, contact, and grievance officers. While the new law has been in the works since 2018, its passage was accelerated by Twitter's refusal to block tweets/accounts associated with the long-running "Farmer's Protest" that greeted the Indian government's passage of laws that many farmers believe do more to aid corporate farms and large agricultural concerns than the many small, independent farmers that populate the country.
Earlier in June, the Indian government issued a "final warning" to Twitter, ordering it to comply with the new law or "face consequences." Twitter has since temporarily removed nearly 500 tweets associated with the Farmer's Protests. During the same time period, its offices in India were raided by Indian law enforcement after Twitter labelled a tweet from a member of India’s ruling party as "misinformation."
Company Considerations:
- Which country's laws should be applied to social media content? Should it be the country in which the tweet originated (in this case, India)? Or should it be the laws in which the headquarters of a platform is located (in this case, the US?)
- Should a foreign person be subjected to another country's laws if they are using a platform of that other country?
- Should Twitter process DMCA counternotices (if any) before removing content and/or suspending alleged infringers?
- How should a company handle backlash from a government when moderating content violation issues such as a copyright violation?
- When laws conflict (as in this case, where Indian law requires notice and the opportunity to challenge the claim before content is moderated, whereas US law does not), can platforms find a middle ground that removes some of the friction (for instance, temporarily "hiding" the content while waiting for a counternotice to be served rather than immediately suspending accounts)?
- Does showing consistency in moderation efforts (like those involving the DMCA process) help head off claims that some of these efforts are "politically-motivated?"
- When it's impossible to please both sides (in this case, foreign government officials and content owners protecting their intellectual property), which party should be prioritized?
- Should pressure from foreign government officials be allowed to alter moderation efforts involving intellectual property owners?
Originally posted to the Trust & Safety Foundation website.
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, content moderation, copyright, dmca, india, intermediary liability, it rules 2021, ravi shankar prasad
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If only there were some way for Twitter to operate entirely in the U.S. without having a local branch in India, so that they don't have to obey Indian laws, but yet still allow people from India to access their service...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, it won’t work. If someone breaks a law from the host’s country (yet legal in their country), what do you do? What about vice versa?
This is the inevitable conundrum for EVERY moderately-popular web service. There are too many countries, each with their own laws, some of which contradict other countries’ laws, to be able to adhere to them all. Each country will assert their sovereignty over their citizens, regardless of what website they’re using.
I suppose one could try to restrict everything and only allow what every country allows—good luck! At least it will provide permanent employment to small armies of international lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They could tell foreign totalitarians where to stick their anti-free speech laws. But there is money to be made in these countries and for corporates thats more important than taking a moral stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music copyright?
I guess Ravi Shankar issued a takedown of Ravi Shankar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music copyright?
He's pretty cranky at 101 years old, you know, so could be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When it is impossible to please both sides (in this case, foreign government officials and content owners protecting their intellectual property), which party should be prioritized?
https://solitairespider.co/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Visible Reason to be in India
Some things need local offices in India. Those telephone boiler rooms from which I receive calls about my impending arrest for fraudulent activity on my Social Security account, for instance, need to be there because that is where the labor is.
On the other hand, an internet service can easily plunk its servers in a colo up in Virginia and never need to have a physical presence in India. Sure, that means the service may not have the opportunity to pay taxes in India, but they can just mail that money to me at [address redacted] and everything will be fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter in Modi's pocket
This incident might come across as Twitter being overreactive, but it is just a piece of the bigger picture. Twitter is taking sides in India and is decidedly backing the Modi government to silence opposition. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-58196793
[ link to this | view in chronology ]