Confrontation between social media and govt is pointless and unnecessary

No government has the right to ask these platforms or intermediaries to disclose the identities and other details of their customers. That's like asking postmaster to open your mail. It just won't do

All through the highly indignant debate on Twitter, WhatsApp etc last week, it was striking by how little importance is attached to the meaning and effect of sovereign power. 

It is simply ignored by those not in government just as those in government think it gives them the licence to do anything. 

However while sovereign power is absolute, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. Arbitrary and foolish laws simply won’t do and they do get struck down by the courts. 

Thus while sovereignty bestows absolute power, it also demands absolute wisdom in its use. The only restraint on governments is good sense and self-restraint. 

Societies debate issues as if this feature of democracy can be ignored. 

What get therefore, from both sides, is a lot of self-serving and nonsensical arguments. 

Apply the test

If we apply this test to the government’s kerfuffle with Twitter, WhatsApp etc  — and have no doubts, in the overall scheme of things they are etc only — we get a more sensible way of examining the issues.

The core argument in the debate was summed up nicely by a senior government official, Srivatsa Krishna, in a recent article. 

“Can BigTech, with headquarters in the US, and following US laws, seek cover by using that in other jurisdictions? Or are they bound by the laws of India to give information sought “as a legal request by an authorised representative” of Government?”

The answer to this question makes it clear that the confrontation — quite unnecessary as it happens — is about sovereign power on the one hand and citizens’ rights on the other. You just can’t duck this by strewing red herrings. 

This being so, a government is well within its rights to ask everyone, including social media platforms, to comply with national laws. That’s a no brainer. 

But, equally, no government has the right to ask these platforms or intermediaries to disclose the identities and other details of their customers. That’s like asking the postmaster to open your mail. It just won’t do. 

But let’s see what the US, arguably the most open of societies, has done. Again to quote Krishna:

“…the White House via Executive Order 13925, made it clear that while the freedom of speech was sacrosanct,  the power to “selectively flag tweets” or shut down accounts, or have Big Tech handpick and censor what the American people see, was unacceptable”.

But this applies only to Twitter. You are free to say whatever you like anywhere else. They are not curbing free speech, they are only curbing your access to their platform. 

If you reflect on this you will see it’s exactly equivalent to what we in India have had since 1951 — the caveat about reasonable restrictions on free speech, platforms to be determined on what we call a case-by-basis. 

In fact, our Constitution also leaves it to the government to determine ‘reasonable’. That power has been misused at times. 

No criticism of PMs?

So we come to this thing about attacks on prime ministers. It’s said that the social media platforms are being asked to more-or-less ensure that the current incumbent of that office is not denigrated. 

This is as entirely unreasonable now, as it was in 1988 when the government brought in the defamation bill.  The bill was intended to protect the then prime minister from being traduced. It eventually had to be withdrawn.

The point also is this: now as then, the government is trying to intimidate. 

But if the government has been unreasonable, the platforms, too, have been silly, just as some newspaper editors were during 1987-1988. 

While the platforms are perfectly within their rights to refuse to disclose information about the customers, they are not quite right in thinking that they need not comply with the news rules about grievance redressal etc. 

So what we have is an unreasonable demand and a silly response. That’s what underlies the current problems.

What’s amazing is that both need each other and the matter could have been resolved without a confrontation that makes both look bad.