Tech-Tonic Weapons

I am a free speech absolutist”: World’s richest man Elon Musk once famously said. Yet when it seemed he would succeed in his bid to buy out Twitter, many, particularly on the ideological Left, deemed it a threat to free speech. The same ideological left has for decades championed free speech (in democratic countries only). When legendary American comedian George Carlin uttered expletives on stage in Milwaukee in 1972, he was arrested for violating local obscenity laws. The left fully backed his rights. The same Left is today pressuring Netflix to cancel shows of top comedian Dave Chappelle because of his jokes on transgender people. Why this contradiction? Have we changed the ideas of free speech over the years? The second issue we must deal with is technology. The breakneck speed of technological change has affected and altered out of recognition many aspects of our lives. Communication is more than any other. Does that affect the way free speech functions? It is a conceivable notion. For example, today traditional codes of ethics may not be enough, we must soon discuss the ethics of AI (Artificial Intelligence). Similarly, in what way technology has affected our right of free speech?

Let’s start with the definition of free speech. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. This has not changed. While actual legal definitions vary in every country, all democracies recognize free speech as a fundamental right critical to promotion of free exchange and dissemination of ideas, information, and views across various platforms- real or digital. This has not changed either. Then why people across the isle of the ideological divide are complaining free speech is in danger, that it is being denied to ‘their people’? The answer lies in the other aspect of this question as mentioned earlier – technology.

Digital revolution, while democratising communication like never before, has also created social media giants. Conventional media giants always existed, but globally, conventional media remained diversified. That automatically worked as a partial guarantor of existence of diversity of opinions. It is not perfect but it worked. If you did not like CNN, you could switch to Fox. But in the digital age, social media became the primary source of information and social media space created monopolies in their respective areas of operation. For example, for political discussions, Twitter is not just the number one Social Media, for all practical purposes, it is the only one. It is used by governments to disseminate official information. It is used by conventional media houses to share news. It is used by common people to discuss, debate and even agitate. People use it to organise and speak truth to power. And all of this happens in an instant. A great tool of human communication. On its part, Twitter took the position initially that it is just a platform that took no responsibility for what the users posted. As a result, the common man suddenly had the power to challenge a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, to ask questions to heads of states. And this caused great upheaval too. All people, but especially the conservatives, who always complained of the Leftist monopoly on conventional media, went to town with this new power. It is fair to say Twitter played a role in the global conservative electoral backlash we have experienced in the last decade or more. This made Twitter (and other global leaders in Social Media like Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc.) practical owners of their respective communication market space. With the penetration of cheap internet in lesser developed countries, even more, people joined and these social media companies became incredibly influential in forming public opinion. Thus when we discuss free speech in digital space today, we are essentially discussing Social Media.

With great power comes great responsibility desire for even greater power: In a way, for-profit companies trying to tap into this unprecedented power was inevitable. It began with departure from ‘just a platform’ to ‘it is necessary to police the platform for a safe space for all’. It has kept evolving with ever more noble-sounding ideals being introduced – the safety of women and minorities, curbing hate speech, protection of activists, defeating fake news, fighting unscientific beliefs dangerous to public health, etc., etc. All of them sound fair and legitimate. Of course, they do. That is why they were chosen. Prior to this, social media free speech was only governed by law of the land defining free speech. For the most part, all countries outlaw incitement of violence, exploitation of minors, libel and defamation. That applied to Social Media too. But now Social Media companies started formulating policies going way beyond that. They started policing what can be posted on social media using these noble goals. And then they started de-platforming people who “broke their rules”. And THIS is where the crux of one of the great debates of our times lies – can these monopolies, that have become de facto public service providers, deny their services to people by going beyond the laws that govern those people, yet at the same time refuse to own responsibilities of a publisher? In India, too, this has been a raging debate. Recently, my own Twitter account called ‘Wokeflix’ was suspended by Twitter for publishing a cartoon about another cartoon depicting capital punishment handed out to Ahmedabad blast convicted terrorists. The cartoon showed the terrorists wearing skull caps traditionally worn by Muslims. But the thing is, the convicted terrorists are actually Muslims. If it was a woman terrorist, I would have had to show a woman. Then would Twitter decree that the cartoon was spreading hate against women? This becomes even more problematic when you contrast this against the numerous cartoons targeting Hindu religious symbols and deities and even identities like ‘Brahmins’ being published on Twitter, without any adverse consequences. Especially the targeting of Brahmins looks even more egregious when you realize Twitter rules define Caste as a protected category. I have subsequently challenged the decision in Delhi High Court and the case is currently sub judice (Wokeflix Vs Union of India, Twitter and Meta (FB,  Instagram and WhatsApp)

Impact on India and what can India do? Despite protestations to the contrary from the smooth talking representatives of these Social Media giants, the fact is these companies have a physical domicile, mostly USA. And when the time comes, these companies will follow the stand taken by the West in general and by certain ideologies in particular. These companies have already made their ideological bias clear through many actions. Arbitrary suspension of accounts, special treatment to sensitivities of selected religions, unprofessional appointment of propagandists as fact-checkers and lack of accountability in the processes defined for these fact-checkers (for example, none of the fact-checkers give the option to common users to demand a fact check, even for a fee, thus giving total control over which items to fact check to these propagandists) etc., are serious attempts to manipulate public debate. The ridiculous suppression of pro-Russia voices during the ongoing Ukraine war also does not bode well for any country that may in future run afoul of the West over any issues, real or imagined. Clearly, the current situation is not sustainable for a country such as India that takes pride in her democracy and sovereignty. Last year, the Government of India introduced regulations for Social Media companies aimed at making them answerable to Indian citizens. Appointment of on-shore compliance officers and other processes have been implemented. However, going by the continuing arbitrary suspensions and even more opaque shadow banning of numerous accounts, it is clear that these companies do not wish to open up their great power to any democratic or legal scrutiny beyond lip service. Good news is, during my ongoing case against Twitter, the Indian Government has clearly stated they expect Social Media companies to follow Indian laws. Bad news, there is no evidence thus far indicating that will be sufficient to protect the integrity of Indian political discourse because these companies are too powerful today on the world stage. Indian Government must also demonstrate more intent on their part to introduce laws that will facilitate these companies in indeed providing a safe space to their customers.

Final Solution

There is no final solution in regulating business activity. The regulator must keep evolving as businesses and technologies evolves. China has blocked these Social Media giants from operating in their country, thus they remain safe from the influence of these western corporations. This has also helped China develop their own alternatives that serve the vast Chinese market well. Given the size of Indian market, this may be feasible for India, but politically far more difficult to pull off. Hence a more aggressive and firm regulation over Social Media companies remains the only real short-term option. Let us hope the Modi government is listening. The future of our great democratic experiment may be at stake.