The Nepalese government’s recent attempt to clamp down on social media became the final straw that broke the incumbent regime’s back. The KP Oli government banned 26 social media platforms, citing their failure to meet a deadline to comply with local registration requirements. This move aligned with the State’s repeated attempts to place controls on social media and silence online critics. It also points to a larger trend—of governments across the globe attempting stringent social media regulations, without consulting the most important stakeholders—the users.
Unlike traditional media, social media is participatory. Users create most of the content on social media websites and apps, and the virality of a post is largely driven by them. In contrast, a radio channel’s listeners do not influence how widely a programme spreads the same way users on social media do for a piece of content. This basic facet necessitates a novel approach toward new media regulation.
New public square
The fact that users drive virality and annotate content as it evolves complicates social media regulation in two ways. First, it becomes difficult to pin down precisely who is responsible for each piece of content and its popularity. Second, new regulations may not have the intended downstream effects because users may respond to the changes in unexpected ways. But social media also retains age-old problems of traditional media, like misinformation, and governments worldwide rely on the same regulatory toolkit used to manage legacy media.
Nepal is not the first country to crack down on social media to control the flow of information, curb dissent, or reinforce political and cultural agendas. China blocks access to social media companies like Facebook and X, running domestic alternatives that are heavily monitored. Iran and Saudi Arabia censor online content based on its impact on culture and religion. Australia’s ban on all social media for users under 16 adds another dimension to this trend – prioritising users’ safety over their autonomy. All of these approaches betray the absence of a nuanced understanding of new media and its users among governments today.
India’s approach
New media is relatively untouched by heavy-handed regulation in India, outside of a non-transparent content takedown regime. But signs of change are visible: The Madras High Court recently directed the government to develop steps to combat the spread of non-consensual intimate images online. The government also aims to combat deepfakes via advisories, court guidelines, and expert committee reports. In India’s Got Latent case, the Supreme Court issued a directive to the government to create an ‘influencer code’ for the sensitive portrayal of vulnerable groups online. These guidelines, once notified, will add to the baseline of information technology regulation that applies to new media.
India’s 800 million-strong internet user base depends on new media to gain economic freedom and create civic, cultural, and political spaces. The country is now home to a democratised content creator economy. Over two million users make monetised content. Annually, Indians create 45 million hours of content on YouTube alone, presenting an opportunity to further the economy and export Indian culture to the world. This large creator and user base also presents a complex challenge for the many state agencies meant to be guarding and upholding a sometimes amorphous notion of public interest. New media’s potential for good as well as for harm befuddles policymakers, regulators, and jurists alike.
Also read: India’s online gaming ban leaves an industry jobless. ‘This was my passion & profession’
The regulation paradox
Recent regulatory interventions in India targeted at digital services are both harsh and sudden, such as the ban on real-money games without notice to gamers themselves. The formation of the proposed ‘influencer code’ will also likely not involve social media users in a wide and transparent two-way consultation. Such exclusion can have far-reaching implications, as the Nepal example has shown. Nobody can say if India can ever be subject to the same kind of Hobbesian nightmare that was seen on the streets of Kathmandu, but the fact is that new media is an indispensable creative and informational outlet. It deserves much more than closed-door regulatory consultations.
India’s Pre-legislative Consultation Policy 2014 requires the publication of draft rules with explanatory notes and the collection and release of stakeholder comments. Some regulators, like the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, follow this process, maintaining a basic modicum of transparency in their functioning. However, most other State agencies often miss this step. New media demands that they go beyond.
India can learn from global best practices in public consultations, like Canada, which requires open consultations for any regulation affecting the economy or citizen safety. The UK’s media regulator, the Office of Communications (OfCom), sets out guidelines that encourage early stakeholder engagement, realistic deadlines for any policy proposal, and regular publication of inputs received. OfCom must also provide reasons for why a decision was taken, once consultation is over. India can emulate this practice, rather than merely publishing consultation responses in bulk.
Regulators of new media must foster greater consultation with civil society. An ideal template would include wide public service communication around proposed moves, sufficient time for society to respond, transparency in the publishing of these responses, and explanations on how final regulations respond to these. The new public square deserves and demands this new regulatory approach.
Mannat Marwah is a new media researcher at Koan Advisory Group. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)