When an algorithm silences a PM: The case for real platform accountability

PM Modi's deleted social media post highlights the need for transparency, due process and accountability from Big Tech platforms over content moderation

On July 23, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke directly to the young people of this country. In a video message on his Facebook page and Instagram, he assured students anxious about the Neet paper leak that the law against such crimes would be strengthened and fast-track courts set up. Within days, that message — from the elected leader of 140 crore Indians addressing citizens on a matter of urgent public concern — vanished from the platforms. Meta’s explanation, when it came, was that the takedown was an “error”, a “technical glitch”. The post was restored, an executive flew in from the United States and an apology was offered.

 

 

I want to be very clear about why that apology, however welcome, is not the point.

 

If the most-followed democratic leader in the world can have his voice suspended through an unexplained process — with no notice, reasons or named decision-maker — what chance does an ordinary Digital Nagrik have? A small entrepreneur whose page is throttled, a journalist whose video is demonetised or a student whose account is suspended does not get a visiting executive and a press statement. They get silence. The takedown of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message matters precisely because it makes visible, for one dramatic moment, what millions of Indians experience routinely and invisibly.

 

This is not a new battle, and it did not begin with Big Tech. More than a decade ago, when Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was being used to arrest ordinary Indians for tweets and Facebook posts, I took that fight to the Supreme Court as an MP — a fight that ended in 2015 with the Court striking down the provision as unconstitutional. My concern then was arbitrary state power over a citizen’s speech. The concern today is arbitrary private power over the same speech. The principle underlying Article 19 has never changed: No government or corporation should be able to silence a citizen without due process or unless the restriction meets the test under Article 19(2) for reasonable restrictions on speech.

 

First as an MP and then as a minister, I made the same argument from the other side of the table to the biggest technology companies on earth: The internet must be open, safe and trusted, and platforms that enjoy the privilege of safe harbour owe a corresponding duty of accountability to the citizens they serve. The Information Technology Rules we notified in 2021 and strengthened in 2022 were built on that principle — grievance officers with defined timelines, Grievance Appellate Committees to ensure that a platform’s decision is never the last word, and the foundational idea that a platform’s terms of service cannot override an Indian citizen’s constitutional rights. When deepfakes surged, we said unambiguously that there would be no safe harbour for platforms that failed to act. Big Tech pushed back at every step. Events continue to prove the argument right.

 

Consider what we still do not know about this incident. Who — or what — flagged Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s video? Was it a human reviewer, an automated classifier or a coordinated mass-reporting campaign that gamed the system? Why did the takedown survive whatever internal review exists for a page that is presumably among the most closely scrutinised on the platform? And why does content that any reasonable person would consider abusive remain online for weeks while a head of government’s address to students is removed within days? The parliamentary standing committee has rightly demanded the complete audit trail. Meta’s inability to answer these questions is itself an answer: Either the processes governing speech for hundreds of millions of Indians are opaque even to Meta, or the company does not want to reveal the biases behind those processes.

 

Some will call it ironic that a ruling party is complaining of censorship. Protecting constitutional rights is the BJP’s position and always has been. My record answers them: I fought Section 66A when governments were doing the silencing, and I make the same argument now that algorithms are doing it. The unaccountable machinery that removed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s video could remove an Opposition leader’s video tomorrow. The answer is not merely outrage on behalf of my Prime Minister, but an accountability architecture for every citizen.

 

What should that architecture look like? Three things. First, transparency by default: Every takedown or throttling of a lawful account must be accompanied by reasons, an identifiable process and a time-bound appeal, with the audit trail available for scrutiny. Second, algorithmic accountability: As I have argued publicly since 2018, systems that shape what Indians see — and increasingly decide what Indians may say — must be open to audit. A glitch that can silence a Prime Minister is not merely a glitch; it reflects a design choice about where accountability does not exist. Third, India needs a modern successor to its two-decade-old Information Technology Act, with clear obligations governing AI-generated content and deepfakes, effective age-assurance mechanisms for children, and penalties that a trillion-dollar company would actually notice.

 

In the end, this is about trust. Trust is the real currency of the digital age, and India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has extended more of it to these platforms through its more than 90 crore users than any other open society on earth. Trust extended must be trust earned, and trust is earned only through accountability: The willingness to explain decisions, identify processes and answer to the law of the land.

 

With their growing commercial power and dominance, these platforms present significant risks and challenges. Their presence across advertising, payments, public discourse and commerce is bringing visible and invisible changes to society, family values and the nature of our democracy. Greater scrutiny and discussion about these platforms and their role in our future are urgently needed.

 

An apology restores a post. Only accountability restores trust. An internet that is open, safe, trusted and accountable is what Indians deserve. That is our goal, and under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, we will achieve it.

 

---

  The writer is the MLA for Nemom and a former Union minister of state for Electronics & Information  Technology and Skill Development & Entrepreneurship.