US Media Companies Engaging In Proactive Censorship Of Content Ahead Of India's New Hate Speech Laws

from the proxy-censorship-really-isn't-an-improvement-over-direct-censorship dept

India’s government is still seeking more direct control of the internet, using ill-defined buzzwords (“hate speech,” “fake news”) as justification for broken encryption and holding tech companies directly responsible for content created by users. The Indian government may have passed and killed a “fake news” law in the space of 24 hours, but the term lives on as a useful enabler for censorship.

New rules proposed by the Indian government to rein in tech giants and combat fake news could have a profoundly chilling effect on free speech and privacy online. The proposed changes involve Section 79 of the IT Act, a safe harbor protection for internet “intermediaries” that’s akin to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US. Current law protects intermediaries such as internet service providers and social media platforms from liability for the actions of their users until they are made aware of a particular post; intermediaries also must only censor content when directed by a court.

The proposed amendments attempt to curb the spread of misinformation on platforms like Facebook and Twitter by effectively forcing internet companies to censor a broad swath of user content. They also require secure messaging services like WhatsApp to decrypt encrypted data for government use, which could affect the security of users around the globe. The rules also would require internet companies to notify users of their privacy policies monthly.

Just the threat of government intervention has been enough to turn a number of US companies into proactive censors. As Paris Martineau notes in this Wired article, Netflix and a number of other streaming services have already voluntarily agreed to engage in self-censorship, purging their Indian offerings of content that “disrespects the country’s flag,” “hurts religious sentiments,” or promotes terrorism.

Netflix’s justification for self-censorship is apparently that this is somehow better than direct government censorship. But this justification makes no sense, especially when proactive measures tend to remove more content than is actually illegal. Add in some automation and legal content is going to get flagged and removed faster than the Indian government can issue self-serving removal requests.

The government’s timetable on content removal only adds to the problem. The Indian government wants content it finds illegal removed within 24 hours of notification. Short turn times — seen elsewhere in the world — have increased proactive takedowns by internet companies, resulting in far more content removals than are strictly necessary.

Not that these governments are complaining. Bogus takedowns aren’t their problem, beyond the occasional courtroom dispute over mistakenly-removed content. At this point, governments need only threaten to put direct censorship in place to start seeing content these governments don’t like removed.

India’s plan introduces compromised encryption to the mix, which would set a dangerous precedent if companies like WhatsApp comply. If it can be done in India, it can be done anywhere, and a long list of government entities frustrated that they don’t have access to every domestic online conversation will see this as an invitation to make similar demands. And once the floodgates are opened halfway around the world, it’s going to be tough to argue you can’t do the same thing in your home country.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “US Media Companies Engaging In Proactive Censorship Of Content Ahead Of India's New Hate Speech Laws”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
28 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

hmm

As Paris Martineau notes in this Wired article, Netflix and a number of other streaming services have already voluntarily agreed to engage in self-censorship, purging their Indian offerings of content that "disrespects the country’s flag," "hurts religious sentiments," or promotes terrorism.

What if my religion condemns censorship (of any kind) as an act of terrorism?

That One Guy (profile) says:

'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hurt us.'

As Paris Martineau notes in this Wired article, Netflix and a number of other streaming services have already voluntarily agreed to engage in self-censorship, purging their Indian offerings of content that "disrespects the country’s flag," "hurts religious sentiments," or promotes terrorism.

Last I checked most flags aren’t capable of feeling disrespect, and anyone pathetic enough that ‘insulting’ the flag of their country is actually seen as a serious problem is already demonstrated a skin so thin that you wouldn’t even need an x-ray to see through it, such that saying mean things about a bit of cloth is the least of their problems.

Likewise with ‘religious sentiments’, as I see anything along the lines of ‘blasphemy’ as little less than an admission that the people decrying such ‘crimes’ are under the impression that their beliefs are so laughably weak that they can’t stand even mild criticism and/or questioning. That someone saying something mean is enough to bring it all crumbling down, as though it was beyond weak from the get-go.

Ironically enough, by rushing to ‘protect’ their flag and/or religion they instead do more damage to the image of both than anyone else could, by portraying one or both of them as beyond weak, able to be harmed by something as mild as words.

Bamboo Harvester (profile) says:

Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hurt us.'

“Ironically enough, by rushing to ‘protect’ their flag and/or religion they instead do more damage to the image of both than anyone else could, by portraying one or both of them as beyond weak, able to be harmed by something as mild as words.”

Every religion and country on the planet was started with nothing more than words.

Every religion and country on the planet that no longer exists was defeated by words.

Flags are iconography. Just like crucifixes, the Star of David, etc.

For a post on a blog dedicated to free speech, I find it surprising that you don’t seem to have a concept of the power of words.

Even “mild” ones.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hurt us

Every religion and country on the planet was started with nothing more than words.

Every religion and country on the planet that no longer exists was defeated by words.

Plus or minus a few other things, like people, resources, massive amounts of effort up to and including willing to kill/die for their belief/cause in many cases, sure.

For a post on a blog dedicated to free speech, I find it surprising that you don’t seem to have a concept of the power of words.

Words have power only to the extent that people give them power, and while some have more potential impact than others (‘Kill the heretic’ vs ‘Let’s get lunch’), barring extreme cases(see again: ‘Kill the heretic’) I’ll take more free speech, even if some of it is offensive, than less.

If a country can fall by nothing more than disrespect towards a piece of cloth, it was a joke from the start and did not deserve respect.

If ‘hurting religious sentiments’ is enough to bring a religion down, it too was pathetic and hollow.

OA (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hur

This is in response to this whole comment branch:

Words have power. Can be significant, but how? why?

The power words have is actually the power of communities (and individuals). Words can trigger, direct and focus this power usually by the communication of ideas.

Bamboo Harvester is correct, but this does not truly invalidate OP’s (That One Guy) comment. A common reason for suppressing broad categories of speech is to keep ideas from triggering communal power and harming power structures.

…people decrying such ‘crimes’ are under the impression that their beliefs are so laughably weak that they can’t stand even mild criticism and/or questioning.

‘Beliefs’ is the wrong focus. It is the power structures built around beliefs that is the issue. Even sincere, reasonable beliefs can be connected to people/organizations who are corrupted somehow, and are then fearful of the potential comeuppance.

BTW, in a society, it is good to have power broadly seeded amongst its membership; this helps prevent any corruption by any subgroup from getting out of hand (we can all be tempted, but by different things, hopefully). [You also need some "higher faith" to prevent a coalescing around shared self-destructive attitudes.]

;tldr

Suppressing speech can be a Bubble Sustaining Mechanism.

Bamboo Harvester (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words

“The power words have is actually the power of communities (and individuals). Words can trigger, direct and focus this power usually by the communication of ideas.”

Almost. The power words have is how communities are formed – a person has an idea and expresses it through language to others. Those like-minded (or gullible enough) flock together forming a community.

Words work not only to communicate ideas, but to discredit other ideas.

Which is why missionaries don’t ask “have you felt the power of god” but instead ask “Have you heard the WORD of god”. Implies their god has better ideas than your god…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words

Actually it’s almost exactly the other way around. Science sprung from religion, specifically from the Judeo-Christian tradition and its unique doctrine of linear progression, as opposed to the near-universal understanding in the pagan world of the nature of existence being cyclical.

Almost all cultures throughout history have had a cyclical cosmology. This makes sense. We live on a spinning globe which is in turn spinning around the sun, and this produces natural cycles on earth. And its these cycles that led to a cyclical cosmology (just as appearances also led to Geocentrism). But this cyclical view is not fertile ground for science. Science entails the notion of progress, a belief that we can progress towards a state where we understand nature. The Christians inherited from the Jews a sense that was most "unnatural," a sense that stemmed from revelation – cosmology is linear. That is, God created and works through history. For example, His delivery of the Israelites from Egypt would never happen again, so it must be retold. The Christians inherited this spirit. Their history became as follows: Creation – the Fall – the coming of Messiah- the death of Messiah – the birth of the Church – the return of Messiah. It was a linear view where history was progressing towards a goal. This linear thinking was important to science. Why? Intellectuals from cyclical world views tend to think "there’s nothing new." Instead of looking for something new, they look to the wisdom of ancients who represent a Golden Age. But the Christian could say, "Hey, maybe the ancients didn’t know everything. Maybe there is something new to be learned, something that has NEVER been known before."

Michael Bumbulis
(The whole article is worth reading)

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Yet another case where the term “hate speech” can be best understood by prepending the words “I” or “we”. They’re not worried about actual hate speech; they’re worried about “we-hate” speech.

“We hate speech that disrespects our flag.”

“We hate speech that disrespects our religion.”

“We hate speech that we arbitrarily decide is something promoting terrorism.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The word disrespect is interesting in that it attempts to define something that is not there.

Respect is earned and can be lost. Some claim this is disrespect – ok, but do not try to say that this loss of respect is to be criminalized when heads of state or other rich influential people get their feelings hurt.

Anonymous Coward says:

What feedoms should be permitted to persons or companies?

This whole article could be summarised as:

“If you dont want your government to do stupid stuff, watch it and get involved”.

India can make whatever laws they like, and if some streaming company wants to pre-filter their content so that they are ready to continue to participate in that market before the law comes into effect, why cant they do that?

Country Y wants to enforce shitty encryption (remember export standards?) they can do that too. If a foreign company wants to comply to ensure continued market access, then shucks.

Yes, there can be trends. But, it all comes down to the first point. You have a right to influence your own government. Start there.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
13:30 A Reagan Judge, The First Amendment, And The Eternal War Against Pornography (63)
12:27 Yelp Asks Court To Stop Texas AG Ken Paxton From Suing Them For Warning Users That Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Scams (51)
13:20 'Porn' Is A Human Right (58)
11:54 American Library Association Data Shows The Party Of Free Speech Is Doing More Than Ever To Silence Speech (83)
10:40 5th Circuit Decides To Rehear Jawboning Case Involving Disinfo Researchers, Realizes It Can't Do That Yet, Changes Mind Hours Later (8)
10:56 Federal Judge Says Fuck The 1st Amendment While Upholding Public University's Drag Show Ban (91)
10:39 White House, States Try To Convince Supreme Court In Jawboning Case (73)
20:09 Delaware State Police Pay $50,000 To Man Troopers Ticketed For Flipping Them Off (23)
09:36 Supreme Court Puts 5th Circuit Ruling On Biden Admin Jawboning Of Social Media Companies On Hold For Shadow Docket Review (41)
10:45 New Jersey Appeals Court Says Even Some Forms Of Harassment Are Protected Speech (27)
13:38 Another Day, Another SLAPP Threat From A ‘Wellness’ Influencer Against Someone Reviewing Their ‘Masterclass’ (16)
09:31 5th Circuit Cleans Up District Court’s Silly Jawboning Ruling About the Biden Admin, Trims It Down To More Accurately Reflect The 1st Amendment (40)
09:27 Court Tosses Arkansas Age Verification Law For Violating The 1st Amendment (16)
15:20 Texas Ruling Shows You Can't Regulate Online Pornography Like A Public Health Crisis (25)
13:30 Court Says Texas’ Adult Content Age Verification Law Clearly Violates The 1st Amendment (35)
12:50 State Governments Can't Resist The Siren Song Of Censorship (81)
10:50 Fifth Circuit Denies Immunity To Detective Who Arrested A Man For A Satirical Facebook Post (21)
12:44 Montana’s Response To Lawsuits Over Laughably Unconstitutional TikTok Ban Is To Say That TikTok Is The Equivalent Of ‘Cancer-Causing Radio’ (19)
09:25 ‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Elon Musk Suggests He’s Going To Sue George Soros… For His Free Speech Advocating For Certain Laws (129)
10:47 Jordan's King Approves Bill That Criminalizes Online Anonymity, Publication Of Police Officers Names/Photos (14)
10:58 Kansas Cops Raid Small Town Newspaper In Extremely Questionable 'Criminal Investigation' (26)
09:22 Tennessee Teen Sues School For Suspending Him After He Posted Memes Mocking His Principal (15)
11:57 ‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Elon Musk Files Obvious SLAPP Suit Against Non-Profit Critic (49)
10:58 Prime Minister's Brother Latest Victim Of Singapore's 'Fake News' Law (5)
13:45 Court: Injunction Blocking Florida's Anti-Drag Law Applies To Everyone Affected By It, Not Just Venue That Sued It (35)
09:31 How Would The GOP Feel If Democrats In Congress Demanded Details Regarding How Fox News Or The NY Post Made Editorial Decisions? (267)
10:46 Republican AGs Decide That Coercive Jawboning Is Good, Actually (When They Do It) (28)
10:49 Ninth Circuit Dumps Oregon's 'Surreptitious Recording' Law, Handing A First Amendment Win To Project Veritas (35)
10:52 In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry (168)
09:24 EU And Elon Battle Over The New Internet Regulations That Elon Himself Endorsed Last Year (14)
More arrow