Travel Guides – Twitter executive resigns amid tussle with government

Tweet button on keyboard

A senior executive at Twitter India has give up amid rising tensions between the social media agency and the government.

Dharmendra Chatur was solely lately appointed as the corporate’s interim resident grievance officer.

His was one in every of three positions that each giant social media corporations is predicted to fill beneath controversial new digital media guidelines.

Twitter has not commented on the resignation however Mr Chatur’s title just isn’t displayed on its website as per the foundations.

The new guidelines, formally referred to as the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, had been introduced in February.

They require social media corporations to nominate three full-time executives, all Indian residents – one for compliance, one other for addressing person grievances, and a 3rd for spherical-the-clock co-ordination with regulation enforcement our bodies.

Firms should additionally take away content material inside 36 hours of a authorized order, and use automated processes to take down objectionable materials equivalent to pornography.

The ministry of knowledge expertise had stated that two of the brand new officers Twitter appointed weren’t workers, that its listed workplace handle was that of a regulation agency, and that it hadn’t given particulars in regards to the third rent, the chief compliance officer, who’s criminally chargeable for non-compliance.

Twitter has not responded to a question in regards to the compliance situation, barring a terse assertion that an interim chief compliance officer had been retained, and that “Twitter continues to make every effort to comply with the new guidelines”.

But Mr Chatur’s resignation sophisticated issues additional, particularly because it comes simply days after the agency’s managing director earned a temporary reprieve from court from a police summon. The order at present protects him from arrest, however the case remains to be open.

India's IT Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad

IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad stated the foundations are designed to forestall abuse of platforms

The set off was a video – allegedly displaying a hate crime – shared on the platform: a 72-yr-previous Muslim man was overwhelmed up and his beard minimize off. Many, together with distinguished journalists, shared the video.

Story continues

Police in Ghaziabad metropolis, close to the nationwide capital Delhi, stated faith was not a motive and that the attackers had been sad about an amulet the Muslim man had offered them. They arrested six folks for the assault.

They also registered a complaint, under serious criminal charges, against Twitter India, information web site The Wire, three journalists and three politicians of the opposition Congress celebration for sharing the video with “an intention to provoke communal unrest”. All six are Muslim, though non-Muslims additionally shared the video.

On 21 June, Twitter restricted 50 tweets, most of them with the contentious video, in India. The firm’s India head supplied to fulfill the police over a video chat. But they despatched one other discover asking him to look in particular person.

It’s uncommon for social media firm executives to be summoned over posts on their platforms. Like cellphone firms, these corporations are “intermediaries” whom Indian regulation doesn’t maintain answerable for posts on their websites – in the event that they comply with the regulation and take down content material when legally required to.

But India’s federal government says Twitter may lose that middleman safety for failing to conform with the brand new IT guidelines.

“The Indian government is making an example of Twitter, to send a strong message to all foreign companies,” journalist and digital rights activist Nikhil Pahwa stated. “It has China envy. It wants to exert more control over foreign players operating on the internet in India.”

Losing “intermediary” standing could make life very troublesome for social media corporations. Religious sentiment is well harm in India – for instance by a cartoon a couple of cow, thought-about holy by Hindus – and will open the floodgates to hundreds of complaints implicating the platform and its executives. The case in opposition to Twitter might be the primary of many.

Whodunit? Tracing the sender

Twitter just isn’t the one firm at odds with the government. Last month WhatsApp sued the government over the rules, which it says pressure it to violate person privateness. With greater than 400 million Indian customers, a fifth of its world prospects, the Facebook-owned app is India’s largest messenger platform.

WhatsApp is objecting especially to a rule that demands that it trace the originator of a message, which the agency says will pressure it to interrupt encryption and browse and retailer each message. Not so, government officers say: WhatsApp should discover a method to do that with out breaking encryption. But even that would want WhatsApp “to keep a fingerprint of every single message sent” in a database, which might break encryption and undermine folks’s proper to privateness, the corporate stated in a press release.

This rule would have an effect on different encrypted platforms, such Signal and Apple’s iMessage. For now, although, the government’s consideration is mounted on WhatsApp.

Newspapers carrying ads by WhatsApp

WhatsApp has over 400 million customers in India, a fifth of its world person base

This rule was first drafted in 2019 in the wake of dozens of rumours forwarded on WhatsApp: about baby abduction, cow slaughter and different information that turned out pretend however resulted in lynchings. The government desires WhatsApp to help investigations into pretend information and different crimes, together with terrorism. But giving up encryption to assist resolve crime is a Faustian discount, privateness activists say.

‘Big Brother state’

The United Nations is apprehensive too. The UN’s particular rapporteurs expressed serious concern that India’s new IT guidelines may result in human rights violations and suppress freedom of speech. “Intermediaries will over-comply with takedown requests to limit their liability,” they stated in a letter.

The letter additionally says that the brand new guidelines present energy to censor journalists. But even earlier than these guidelines, journalists have faced censure and criminal charges.

As it occurs, the foundations do cowl publishers of reports in a separate, exhaustive part, administered by one other ministry – info and broadcasting. The compliance burden is onerous, and consists of grievance redressal and content material takedown processes. The National Broadcasters Association has urged the government to exclude digital information from mainstream media homes from the ambit of the foundations. The government has refused.

The middleman guidelines have resulted in different lawsuits. Thirteen media shops have challenged them, saying they sought to “usher in an era of surveillance and fear”. A lawyer in Delhi sued Twitter for non-compliance with the foundations and in Chennai, singer and artist TM Krishna petitioned the court docket, saying the foundations have an effect on his rights as an artist by imposing a chilling impact on free speech and his proper to privateness.

One of the primary petitions in opposition to the foundations was filed by lawyer Sanjay Okay Singh in March. Mr Singh informed the BBC that the foundations go in opposition to his constitutionally protected proper to free speech. He factors to a landmark ruling in opposition to a draconian IT rule, 66A, that made posting “offensive” feedback on-line a criminal offense.

The Supreme Court struck down 66A, and stated that intermediaries shouldn’t be compelled to judge hundreds of calls for to drag down content material, however should act on lawful requests to take away particular content material.

“These new rules go against the letter and spirit of that ruling,” Mr Singh says. “It appears that what they really want to do is take down content critical of the government.” His case remains to be ongoing.