0.1716
900 319 0030
x

Facebook Takedown of Indian Pages

iasparliament Logo
April 05, 2019

Why in news?

Facebook recently removed four networks of groups, pages and accounts from India and Pakistan.

What are the proposed reasons?

  • Three of the four networks removed were taken down for “coordinated inauthentic behaviour” (CIB).
  • Two of the India networks, one each linked to the Congress and BJP, had been on Facebook’s radar for over two months because of this.
  • CIB refers to an orchestrated set of platform violations operated by a single common entity or source.
  • Another Indian network was taken down for what Facebook describes as a “civic spam”.
  • In this case, there were no common linkages between the individual pages, and these pages were not “coordinated”.
  • But regardless of the existence of a common source, the signals and violations in both categories are similar, which included-
    1. single user with multiple accounts (SUMA)
    2. spamming behaviour
    3. clickbait behaviour
    4. location obfuscation
    5. content or ad farms
  • Content or ad farms are websites and pages with large amounts of low-quality content, typically to make money, which appear high on search engines.

What were the networks taken down?

  • Congress’s Gujarat IT cell - Facebook linked one CIB India network to the Congress’s Gujarat IT cell.
  • Initially the platform’s algorithms repeatedly flagged and took down multiple accounts.
  • The company traced these accounts to an IP hub in the party’s Gujarat IT Cell.
  • Most of the accounts exhibited bot-like behaviour, rather than human efforts.
  • Silver Touch Technologies - The other Indian CIB network was linked to the company Silver Touch Technologies, with special focus on a BJP-leaning page called India Eye.
  • Facebook says the page, with 2.6 million followers and $70,000 in ad spending, was hiding its location and using a fake name.
  • Facebook matched the admins to Silver Touch, and took down the page.
  • Facebook saw no formal connections between Silver Touch and BJP in the back-end network.
  • But Silver Touch has worked for both the ruling party and the government on IT solutions.
  • Civic scam - In this case, Facebook’s algorithms did most of the detection of violations and displayed the number of violations per page.
  • With little human investigation, the technologists looked at those numbers and decided which pages to take down.
  • As the violators in this category are often small players with a small number of followers, Facebook's policy is to not disclose their identity.
  • But a majority of the pages in this category were political.
  • Pakistan - The CIB takedown in Pakistan was of a network that linked back to the country’s military media wing.
  • Amongst other tactics, an online group of Pakistanis disguised themselves as Kashmiris who were aggrieved by the Indian Army.
  • This violated the location policies according to Facebook.

What are the concerns with the move?

  • Free speech - Facebook’s decision was based on its assessment that the people involved coordinated with one another and used fake accounts.
  • They misrepresented themselves with the objective of manipulating people.
  • It may seem to be a credible step by the social media platform to deal with fake news and communal propaganda.
  • But the problem with this approach is that it could suppress the right to free speech.
  • Wrong precedent - While taking down the pages, Facebook has based its action on user behaviour, and not the content they posted.
  • In future, pages related to political dissent or a social campaign could be taken down just because they do not comply with Facebook’s rules.
  • This could set a disquieting precedent, and defeat the very purpose of the platform being a medium for exchange of ideas.

Who should regulate these?

  • Media platforms? -Social media platform owners can have the right to decide what goes in and what’s taken down.
  • But a media outlet like Facebook cannot be treated like any other private entity.
  • Facebook exerts immense influence on the social, economic and political outcomes of a country.
  • So such a platform cannot be trusted to do its own policing.
  • Government? - As the government is armed with draconian powers such as defamation and sedition laws, free speech has already taken a hit.
  • India has been among the top countries in blocking politically inconvenient websites of foreign NGOs, UN organisations and activists.
  • In China, the government lays down the rules for social media, and this has not been conducive to free speech in any way.

What can be done?

  • Facebook’s decision exposes the systemic flaws when it comes to policing social media platforms.
  • The challenge of the day is to strike a balance between free speech and hate speech.
  • So an independent regulatory body, rather than the media platform or government, should monitor content on social media platforms.
  • If Facebook is allowed to increase its censorship powers on its own, it could lead to inconsistency and duplicities.
  • If it is really serious about fighting spam and fake news, it should first remove the cover of anonymity of users.
  • The shroud of anonymity gives anti-social elements the courage to spread hate and disharmony.
  • Moreover, there should be no ambiguity regarding the grounds for taking down an account.
  • The guidelines for this should be clearly spelt out in the interest of transparency and consistency.

 

Source: Indian Express, BusinessLine

Login or Register to Post Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to review.

ARCHIVES

MONTH/YEARWISE ARCHIVES

Free UPSC Interview Guidance Programme