A wrangling is going on between the social media and the government for some days now over the new IT rules introduced by the Central government. The purpose of the rules is to bring the media circulated through the internet under the Centre's control. Though apparently the targets of control are the digital news media, the streaming services like Netflix, Hotstar and the OTT platforms catering web-series, the actual targets are the popular social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter etc. That is why there is this clash between the government and these social media organizations. While the government is hell bound to make them comply with the new IT rules, the social media organizations staunchly refuses to do so. While they oppose it as the government's intrusion on individual's privacy and freedom of speech, the IT minister says that they intend to block only those posts which incite riots and mob lynching, support terrorist activities, violate the country's security or promulgates nudity, incidents of rape and abuse of women and children.
This is not the first time that rules are being enacted to control the social media. The IT Act was introduced in 2000 and modified later. In 2011, the IT Rules came into effect. Now again, newer IT rules are being brought forward. Notwithstanding how much the Government claims to secure the country's unity, safety, sovereignty and contain the spread of obscenity through these rules, the new clauses relating to increased governmental control over the social media has created the commotion over it.
Why do the social media oppose the new IT rules?
Firstly, is it true that the big social media organizations like WhatsApp, Twitter raise this furore over the government's move to really safeguard the people's democratic rights, rights to secrecy and freedom of speech? We will see that, these organizations' and their associations' demands relate only to their own establishment - they insist on giving them more time to appoint the executives and to prepare for taking the proper steps against a complaint which are necessitated by the new government rules for IT sector. Actually, they have some internal problems regarding appointment of complaint redressal officers. An officer engaged for such special duty in this country has to comply with the laws and regulations here and would be accountable to the government also. As, in the recent years, journalists and the media companies are often being harassed by the police and the administration after being alleged of anti-government activities, the social media organizations feel more free to run their business here from the USA instead. They do not have to deal with and compromise with any country's government on every occasion then. Obviously, this is the main cause of their concern.
There is another point in the new IT rules which is uncomfortable to these organizations: if they fail to comply with the conditions of these rules, their officials will be liable to be implicated under criminal laws. That is why they prefer a system of fines in place of litigations in case some of them are convicted of spreading illegal news.
Organizations like Facebook-messenger, WhatsApp, who deal in messaging systems, raise another strong point of contention, namely the provision of disclosing the source of news to the investigating agencies by decrypting private messages. The social media companies say that once breaking of encoded messages is permitted on pretext of spotting criminals, it will be hard for them to keep the promise of secrecy to their customers; also, anybody in future may learn the trick and hack the customers' accounts for fraudulent purposes. It is plain that, the Social Media companies are actually trying to protect their business interest as the security of encrypted messages is the USP of their popularity, and if that is violated, they will outright lose the confidence of their customers, ultimately losing the huge number of customers themselves.
How do the social media agencies make profit?
What the social media companies, which are now opposing the government's steps on the pretext of safeguarding the people's democratic rights, do with their customers' right to privacy and freedom of speech can be well understood from their way of conducting business. The worldwide active customer strength of Facebook is 270 crore and that of Instagram is 100 crore. As they promise that the customers' interactions in the social media are encrypted and thus kept private, people are easily carried to open up their hearts in these media. Yet, behind the curtain, the companies collect data about the customers and sell them. Facebook regularly supplies Netflix and Amazon with the individual likes and dislikes of each of their crores of customers. Though apparently, use of these social media is for free, they serve to prepare market surveys about people's demands and preferences; and they make money by selling these surveys to the capitalists who can plan their production and marketing accordingly. That is why immediately after you search for or buy something advertisements about related things begin to appear on your page. Most of the time, the companies keep contact with their customers to push more of their products and they collect data about his/her requirements from the social media. Knowing the customer specifically, they take hold of his/her buying tendencies and even tease their desires with offers. No wonder, such advertising benefits give the social media companies huge earnings.
Even though WhatsApp does not put up advertisements, a recent agreement between WhatsApp and Facebook decided that the latter will collect the details of the former's customers after Facebook took over WhatsApp. The customers having accounts in the newly launched WhatsApp Business are to pay hefty service charges for trading through the business partners of WhatsApp. The claim that the individual's privacy is maintained in a social media platform is, therefore, bogus when they have already commodified our personal data.
Not only that. The digital medium is so widely used today, that the surveillance systems of the governments and administrations can penetrate more deeply into the citizens' personal domains. To remind some of the incidents in our country : the Delhi police in connivance with the ruling party got hold of WhatsApp conversations to efficiently plan and shift the onus of the Delhi riots on the students and the intellectuals protesting against the CAA & NRC. Even in the Bhima-Koregaon case digital records have been accessed by the ruling dispensation from mobiles and computers to frame the case. Efforts of remotely inserting incriminating materials from outside into the computers of two accused who were charged in the Bhima - Koregaon case along with a number of other intellectuals have been established to be true. Shadow surveillance by the government through various means is being undertaken. The most publicized being the Pegasus app. The installation of Arogya Setu app in the devices of accused is being made compulsory for granting bail to him/her.
Surveillance Capitalism
The matter does not end here. In 2016, during the presidential elections in the USA which was to choose between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, a consultant agency named Cambridge Analytica supplied the personal data of millions of Facebook customers to help build up the political campaign. Same type of allegations was made during the BREXIT (the decision of Britain to exit the European Union). It is evident that, while people feel that they have got a wider platform to express their views on everything and they are “empowered”, actually the business is somewhat different: the information from them are being used by the kings of the capitalist rules in their competition for the thrones. India has seen this during the 2014 & 2019 general elections to the Parliament, when the notorious IT Cell of the BJP flooded the social media with false campaign and high promises along with the promotion of Modi by a large section of the big bourgeoisie and the mainstream media controlled by them.
Today, the Facebook worldwide has 270 crore subscribers per month, Whatsapp has 200 crores, in India 34 crores, and Instagram has 100 crore subscribers. The social media covers half the human population. Some of the social media companies has grown into giant organizations and now rank among the biggest capitalist houses of the world. Facebook bought WhatsApp with 19 billion dollars. It is evident that the growth of the social media companies into these giant ones has placed them into an important position in the capitalist world. And, with it, surveillance, collection of private data and business with that data has become rampant in the society in the interest of capital, capitalist profit. That is why modern capitalism is called surveillance capitalism.
Can we expect that the social media companies will safeguard their customers' democratic rights when obviously their driving force is their own business interest pursued under the general interest of capital and the capitalist State?
It is clear that their own business interest and the interest of the capitalist state are the priorities for the social media houses, and not the customers' privacy. Their service is subject to some rules formulated by them, which are called “Community Standard”. But it has been observed that they do not obstruct the regular posts promoting superstitions, distortions of history, derogatory substance relating to caste or religion. On the contrary, they help to garner popular support around the narrow politics of hate by circulating communal, casteist, distorted materials. When questioned about their partiality towards the ruling party in India, Ms. Ankhi Das, the head of Facebook India openly said that it will hamper the company's business interest if they impede the inciting speeches etc. by the leaders of the ruling party. On the other hand, they often block posts criticizing the government or showing state repression in the name of the Community Standard. Thus these social media organizations themselves decide which post will be allowed and which not, depending upon their business interests. Evidently the social media organizations quite undemocratically place far more importance on their business interests and the capitalist states and their governments. They are unable to vouch for truth standing with the masses. Hence how can they fight for the democratic rights of the masses?
What is the real motive of the government behind the new IT rules?
We should rather focus on the question that looking from the position of the masses what is the real motive of the government behind the new IT rules. We can see that behind the much publicized hype about national unity, national security and sovereignty, the government in a period of crisis-ridden capitalism is following an aggressive anti-people policy in all spheres. It is also reflected in the ever-increasing tendency towards autocratic rule which snatches various rights of the people in every aspect of social life. So it's only natural that when new platforms like the social media have appeared, this government is eager to bring it also into its iron fold in the interest of capital.
We note that different lobbies of the big bourgeoisie have reacted differently to the IT rules. Most of them advise the government to give time to the social media houses, withdraw the provision of criminal case in the IT rules and tell the two warring sides to come to an understanding with each other. It is only natural that the dispute will ultimately be settled in favour of the overall interest of the bourgeoisie.
What we must keep in mind is that through all this tantrums, the ruling BJP and the Sangh Parivar continues to exploit governmental power fully to take forward their fascist agenda. They are trying to utilise the state, the power of the state to make laws in this parliamentary-democratic set up to suit their extremist, undemocratic programme towards establishment of ”Hindu Rashtra”, and are being successful in the mission to a large extent. The democratic rights of the public are, therefore, no issue in the conflict between the government and the social media. The real issues are the business interest of the social media on one hand, and the intent of the ruling party to establish its control over the social media to champion its communal- fascist politics.
Actually, the new IT rules are more intended to curtail the democratic rights of the people than to control the social media. The government has provided the big SM houses, called “Significant Social Media” in governmental language, some immunity from litigation under these rules if they obey some basic conditions; they will be absolved of any charge if some unlawful activity goes on their media platform. But the public, especially the middle-class intellectuals, their small blogs, groups etc. are excluded from such immunity. The IT rules say further that the government can compel any type of social medium outside the pale of the big ones to strictly obey the conditions of these rules. The conditions include the permission to decrypt private codes for revealing the identity of the news source. That means if any social medium spreads its influence in societal circles, they will be bound by such and such rules so that they come under constant pressure from the police and the administration and litigation can be initiated against them on the slightest pretext of violating the country's unity, security, patronizing terrorism etc. These are enough to intimidate the general customers and compel the platform to comply with the government's likings.
We have recently seen how aggressively the government reacted when people criticized the government on the issues of the Corona endemic or the farmers' protest on social media. The new IT rules are a step further in holding back the people's democratic rights and protest movements. It is in the nature of a fascist force like the BJP that they would safeguard the capitalists' interests on one hand, and curb the people's movements on the other when it is at the helm of affairs. In the instant case of social media, the government's fury is only being vented at the individual's level, or, at small social groups.
Why is the government putting so much importance on the social media? To understand this, we must note the unique feature of this medium which differentiates it from the others. Like other news media it does not reflect the journalist's or the editor's own opinions or reportage only; the direct exchange of views and participation in debates by the huge number of customers, called the “people” (!) create ripples far and wide and helps in the quick spread of ideas. This first came to the fore in 2011 during the “Arab Spring” when Facebook messages helped organize mammoth rallies. It was repeated during multiple movements thereafter including Anna Hazare's Satyagraha against corruption during Congress rule and the current peasant movement (Kisan Ekta Morcha campaigning through FB regularly) etc. Though the middle class intellectuals' frequent use of the social media to propagate alternative news and to express their dislike against the government's policies is reciprocated by aggressive campaigning by the extreme religious and fascist forces, it is obviously the former about which the government is ill at ease. Especially, as with the popularity of the government being questioned, though voiced primarily by the middle class intellectuals, through the posts in the social media, this media today have become a significant weapon reflecting the people's resentment towards the rulers. This may have some confirmation from the fact that 62.40 crore, i.e., 45% of the population uses the internet, of which 44.80 crore, i.e., 32.3% are Social media -users at the beginning of 2021. [Source: DATAREPORTAL]. For this reason it has become necessary for the government to control this media more stringently.
Like numerous other undemocratic steps taken by the present ruling party BJP at the centre and the states this is also part of the onslaughts on the social media. From some incidents earlier there is enough proof that they are going to restrain the use of Social media. For example, the government put up a very aggressive posture when someone shared a “toolkit” on Twitter for protesting against the utter failure of the Government in dealing with the Corona crisis. More so because Twitter termed some posts of a BJP leader made against the toolkit as “manipulated media” (i.e., distorted information to qualify his own version). As the government failed to extract the name and address of the original creator of the toolkit from Twitter as the latter cited the condition of keeping privacy of its customers, the police raided the head office of Twitter in India. Shortly before this, when another toolkit was posted on Twitter, a young woman associated with environment protection movement was arrested by the Delhi police from Bengaluru and jailed. The government was put in an embarrassing position in international circles as the Twitter post was in support of the farmers struggle. Expressing intense discomfort it termed these activities as anti-national. The more important social media becomes as a platform of protest, the more desperate the government becomes to control them.
It is true that other parties and their governments in the states also react violently to posts against their parties or governments and even engage in police actions. That is why the new rules were contemplated since 2008 during the UPA rule. We may remember the arrests of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and then Sri Ambikesh Mahapatra for creating and sharing some cartoons about leaders in power. But, undoubtedly, the BJP governments are far more aggressive in doing excesses against Social Media posts.
It is interesting to note that it is the BJP who started using the Social Media for quite some time back for capitalizing the people's resentment against governmental policies during Congress' rule. And, before the 2014 elections, they flooded the Social Media with false and fabricated information and built up their communal Hindutva campaign on their basis. In general though, a large portion of the social media consists of such fake news. On the eve of an election, or when there is much furore over any incident, the IT cells of the major parties become active. While the other parties commissioned their IT cells only recently, the BJP's IT Cell earned notoriety much before. Who can forget how a BJP MLA's post of a lynching incident from Pakistan at the onset of the riots in Muzaffarnagar. It was captioned as Hindus being beaten up by Muslims, but later it transpired that the incident was actually from Pakistan. In 2018, a old picture from Tibet was publicized, in the name of apparently an unknown daily, saying “Rohingas come to India, kill Hindus and eat them up”! What an irony that now the same BJP wants to hound out offenders on the social media by bringing in another new set of IT Rules!
We may not have forgotten the recent Delhi riots. As the anti-CAA movement went on, some BJP leaders openly prescribed beating up and shooting the protestors. The administration did not move a finger against them, but accused some students and youths participating in the movement of instigating the riots, implicated them under the UAPA on the basis of some WhatsApp group posts and put them in jail without trial for an unending period. This happened, while the Delhi police shut its eyes on the WhatsApp group named “Hindu Ekta” which corresponded about gathering weapons, organizing riots, slaughter and robbery in that same time period. In the Bhima-Koregaon case, where many in a congregation of Dalits were assaulted, the main two culprits, being staunch followers of Hindutva, goes scot-free, while several pro-Dalit intellectuals from all over the country are interned till date, with clear proof that illegal materials were put in the personal computers from outside for at least two of them. It has become a common incident that the government harasses such intellectuals, students and editors of small newspapers for protesting against the government or, calling for democracy. Can there be still any doubt that how the ruling party is guarding their communal people while framing those who are vocal against various oppression?
The new IT rules helps the government and its administrative and police machinery to create an atmosphere of fear by interfering with the social media so that the voices criticizing the government may be throttled. As the social media definitely provides a platform for discussion and debate on various issues to the intellectual community, the new rules will directly affect their freedom of speech. Their concern, therefore, has enough basis. The new IT rules are actually targeted against them. So we must oppose them to safeguard the right to disagree with the government, and also oppose the intolerance of the government whenever someone criticizes it.
Oppose only the IT rules?
We may note two cases in this context. In 2011, Aseem Trivedi and Ambikesh Mahapatra were arrested under section 66A for some objectionable posts. The Supreme Court dismissed the public prosecutor's pleadings and removed the very section 66A in 2015 citing the right to freedom of speech in the constitution and said that the problem does not lie with indecorous posts but with the police excesses against such acts. Has this dismissal of the section helped to restrain the government from interfering with freedom of speech? No. four years later, in 2019, the Supreme Court only stopped at expressing surprise that its order was not executed. In 2021 it again has been “shocked” that arrests were made under a section discarded by it 6 years ago. Such cases are not uncommon in the states like Assam, Tripura, Chattisgarh and Jharkhand. But Uttar Pradesh tops the states in this kind of repressions. In 2017, immediately after Yogi took oath as the chief minister, 7 people were arrested for derogatory posts about Yogi. Innumerable cases are registered there almost daily for derogatory cartoons/posts about Yogi, Modi, and their governments, or for opposing beef-restrictions. Every time the police term such posts as offensive, insulting and instigating ones. Between 2017 and 2019(July), 150 cases on sedition charges were registered. These have nothing to do with the IT rules. The Penal Codes are sufficient to bring sedition charges, let alone the laws like NSA and UAPA. In our curtailed democracy, the State is all-powerful to use every law that allows long detention without trial. They can be applied any time indiscriminately against Chandrasekhar, the Dalit leader of the Bhim Army, or Akhil Gogoi for leading anti-CAA protests. Hundreds and thousands of poor people, workers, farmers, Dalits and religious minorities are kept behind the bars for no reason for years.
So, we must view the acts against the social media as part of the government's attacks as a whole. While the IT rules target the Netizens for being critical of the government, the latter aims to curb opposition and movements completely. The assault on the anti-CAA protestors, on the farmers, organization of the Delhi riots mentioned above are all only examples of how desperate the government is to repress the resentment against it. The present rulers intend to spare nothing to reach their goal.
The onslaught on Democracy and the oppressive class society
But, it will be a mistake to consider the continuing battering of democracy to be related to the politics of the ruling BJP only. A most important aspect must not be bypassed in this context. Notwithstanding the mainly superficial and incomplete reforms undertaken by the ruling class from time to time, and, because of such piecemeal development of capitalism in this country, old feudal remains are retained in the economy as well as in every aspect of social life. This naturally sustains the discriminatory, repressive and backward ways in our society. A curtailed democracy goes well with a stagnant society and provides a basis for the autocratic tendencies of the rulers. Obviously, this dates back to the pre-BJP era. The longer it takes to liberate the society from these evils, crisis brews up in society, and all sorts of undemocratic sectionalism - be it about religious community, caste, or regional identities - raise their foul heads, pervading the society from top to bottom with cultivated ideas behind them. The rise of a fascist force like the BJP-Sangh Parivar should be viewed in this background.
It is clear from the above that, the problem of hate campaigns or fake news made for them does not lie with the liberty or privacy of the media, whether social, or printed. The crime is rooted within the utterly undemocratic, discriminatory socio-economic structure of the country. The rulers' assault on the people gets support from the structure of our class-divided society, exploitation, inequality and old ways of oppression. Those who want to oppose these and are in favour of democracy and equality are hounded by the most reactionary fascist force, called the BJP. The same fate befalls the protesting Dalits, Muslim minorities, farmers, and the most exploited working class. When the government accuses social media posts of disturbing the country's interest and sovereignty, it is actually afraid that the dissent may spread from the virtual medium to actual grounds. When it imprisons the protestors on the pretext of guarding the country's unity against terrorists and conspirators, it actually tries to ensure silence so that any semblance of truth disappears from the public mind.
Do we think that this condition will change if the laws or the government are changed? Under capitalism, the democracy of the workers and the toiling people subjugated by capital always stay curbed and only formal. And in a backward country like us, it is further suppressed. On one hand there is the hovering of capital for profits and on the other the masses remain caged in religious communalism, casteism, and regionalism. No media, including the social media, can ever be free from the control of the government and oblivious to the capitalist goal of making profit in such a society. Or, shall we say, in any class-divided society? The fight for democracy cannot be confined to the cerebral debates in the social media only, but must be taken to the streets with the aim of revolutionary transformation of this exploitative and unequal society. The precondition to that kind of movement is the independent organization of the working class, their class struggle, because it is only them who can take the challenge of fighting against capital and feudal remnants. Without ending the hegemony of the exploiting classes, without raising the class that has the capability of bringing that end, it is a folly to think of a earning democratic media platform in this society.
The way to complete Democracy: the expedition to classless society under Proletarian dictatorship
But, will the news channels and social media be completely free and independent even when the proletariat seizes power? We must be honest to admit that class struggle between the capitalists and the working class continues under dictatorship of the proletariat after the capitalists are ousted; the capitalists fight tooth and nail to regain power. And, that is why the proletariat has to suppress them to resist them. Thus the proletarian State, being the State of until now the exploited overwhelming majority, has to suppress the handful hitherto exploiting minority in the interest of the masses of toiling people. Though this Democracy is much broad-based than that under capitalism, like every democracy, it curbs the rights and freedom of speech of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisies, and for this reason it is called a dictatorship of the proletariat. Nevertheless to the extent the whole people co-operate and join hand in social production, it will ultimately usher into a new classless society; and it is in that society that the media can truly act as the eye of the people who are ever-alert to look after the welfare of all. Like other attacks the assault on social media once again reminds us that the call of the day is to champion the cause for rebuilding the struggle for that complete democracy.
Comments:
No Comments for View