Editorial: Fact checks, fake news flags

In a development that transpired earlier this month, social media platforms as well as other intermediaries in cyberspace are now required by law to ensure fake news articles about the Centre, that have been deemed and declared accordingly by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) are removed from their platforms when they are informed about such posts.

The changes were notified through the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, amending the IT Rules, 2021. The fact-check unit is tasked with reaching out to the respective government departments to confirm if a news article is fake or not, and act accordingly.

Defending the proposal, Minister of State for Electronics and IT, Rajeev Chandrasekhar said that if there is an aggrieved party, and there’s a party causing aggrievement, Section 79 of the IT Act will not be a safe harbour to prevent a dispute from being adjudicated in the courts.

What this essentially means is that platforms won’t be required to take down content owing to this Rule by itself. However, they will cease to enjoy the legal immunity that they currently bank upon, with regard to content posted by their subscribers or users.

Bottom line is, they can now be called to court as a party to the legal proceedings. The Minister went on to dismiss fears that the amendment would open up the floodgates of censorship, through the take-down of posts critical of the government.

Having said that, the Editors Guild of India has been categoric in vocalising its apprehensions, that the Rules make it easier to muzzle the free press, give sweeping powers to the PIB to compel online intermediaries to knock off content deemed problematic by the government.

Even organisations like the Internet Freedom Foundation have called out the amendment for being legally contentious, and something that was proposed without taking into consultation the very specific viewpoints of the key stakeholders.

If one has to go by the example of social media enterprises in the US, they seem to have a historic track record of being reticent about engaging with the government on matters of a confrontational nature. Without much noise, the companies are known to honour take-down orders.

Twitter might be an exception in this case, as it’s still battling some censorship orders in the Karnataka High Court. However, it has also been dropping the accounts and posts of many reporters, activists as well as members of the polity, based on instructions from the government.

Technology evangelists have pointed out that in the absence of a right to appeal, or an allowance for judicial oversight, the government cannot take its own sweet time to judge whether a piece of information is false or fake. The reason is that such powers can be abused to prohibit inquiries by media outlets. In turn, arbitrary restrictions on intermediaries like social media can affect the public’s access to news articles.

One of the biggest arguments against the PIB being tasked with fact checking is the question of conflict of interest, considering the bureau is run by the government. Needless to say, such amendments do create an atmosphere of insecurity - vis a vis the right of speech and expression of online platforms.

Many observers have described the scenario as an undermining of media liberties even when a fully regulated media enterprise has not run afoul of the existing legal frameworks.

At a time when the news media is already bombarded with the pressures of misinformation, this spectre of constantly looking over one’s shoulder will only weaken the fourth estate’s resilience. It is imperative the government lets the purveyors of news do their job, while it takes care of its own affairs.