Social media cos have a social, moral responsibility: Ravi Shankar Prasad

New Delhi: Telecom, IT & Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said social media platforms have a social and moral responsibility towards their users and they should not take shelter behind technicalities, especially when they deal with an issue like morphed images of a woman.

Responding to a question regarding Google’s contention in the Delhi High Court that its search engine should not be subject to the same IT rules as significant social media intermediaries, the minister said he would not comment on the legal aspect of the case.


“But these social media platforms must acknowledge that they have a social and moral responsibility too towards their users and... it is grossly unfair for them to take shelter behind technicalities when a victim woman says her morphed images are being circulated,” Prasad told ET in an interview.

“When you have hundreds of crores of users, then in my view this argument is completely unacceptable, the principle of gender justice is equally applicable to all and obligation to redress a case of violation of that is also to be addressed by them (social media companies),” added the minister.

Google this week asked a division bench of the Delhi High Court to overturn a ruling of a single bench that directed the technology major to remove objectionable content from its search engine globally. The April order—the first such after the new social media intermediary guidelines were issued in February—was the result of a petition by a woman who claimed that her photographs were uploaded on pornographic websites without her consent.

India’s new social media intermediary guidelines have been opposed by several foreign companies. WhatsApp has filed a case against the government’s demand for “traceability” of messages and Twitter has described these rules as a threat to “freedom of expression”.

‘Double standard is unacceptable’

Prasad accused such companies of having ‘double standards’ as they follow similar rules in the US, but oppose them here.

“Do the big Indian pharma and IT companies that work in the USA follow the US laws or not? Some of the obligations we are imposing here, do they follow the same in America or not? They will willingly accept to (appear) before the American Senate and American Congress, the House of Commons in England, but when it came to coming to Indian Parliament, they were reluctant. If the American Congress and British Parliament are important, the Indian Parliament is equally important,” he said.

The minister said during the violence on Capitol Hill in the US, Twitter had helped the US government and went to the extent of banning Donald Trump. But when violence broke out at the Red Fort on Republic Day, it refused to comply with government requests citing freedom of speech and expression as the reason. After being pulled up by the government, the company later complied with the requests.

Prasad said that platforms also ‘immediately’ complied with Singapore government’s request to remove mentions to ‘Singapore variant’ of coronavirus but ‘took a week’ to do so when a similar request was made by the Indian government.

“This double standard is plainly unacceptable. I don't mince words. They are free to do business here, earn profit here. You have made the people aware about their right to ask questions. Let them criticise the PM, no problem. They do it daily... The larger question is—you are a platform or a media house? If you are a media house, then you have to follow all the norms which The Economic Times follows, the Press Council, the guidelines, etc. You cannot say I will control the content, I will regulate it, but if a question is asked say sorry I have no obligation in India and I am a safe harbour, mainly Section 79 (since they are an intermediary),” he said.

Commenting on the issue of ‘traceability’ of WhatsApp messages, the minister said ordinary users had nothing to fear and the privacy of their messages will be preserved and protected. The government would concentrate on tracing the origin of messages that caused or abetted violence, communal disturbances, mob lynching or terrorism.

WhatsApp has contended in the Court that the requirement for tracing the origin of the message will require it to break “end-to-end encryption” and it will infringe upon the “fundamental rights to privacy and free speech” of its users.

Prasad, however, said the problem of technology ‘is solved by technology.’ “A lot of academics are showing how it can be solved without impinging (upon) encryption.”