In India, it seems set for showdown
between the government and Twitter over its policy of moderation and refusal to
ban accounts responsible for violence in the national capital on the Republic
Day. The government seems in no mood to let Twitter off the hook. On the other
hand the platform seems to be vouching for the right of free speech or dissent
and seems to argue the government orders are in violation of Indian laws.
Twitter obviously cannot sit in judgment of Indian laws. It can however
challenge the government orders in the judicial forum for a remedy. Yet Twitter
is hardly in a mood for the same. To Twitter riding on a high of left liberal
euphoric support on its action post Capitol Hill riots seems to sense this as a
move which will fetch rewards from the left liberal elite circuit as it takes
on PM Modi who is the object of hate for the leftists. On the other hand, the
right wing support base of PM Modi is in a mood for a bloodshed and seemingly
wants Modi to crackdown.
Interestingly, the Modi coalition,
if one might term his support base coalesced on Twitter in the run up to the
2014 elections, something replicated by Donald Trump two years later. PM Modi
himself has been using Twitter for his policy announcements and diplomatic
initiatives, thus it being central to his communication strategy. While there
are alternatives, given the investment in Twitter as communication there would
be lock-in effects. The government meanwhile is moving slowly to the domestic
platform Koo yet it would be long way before Koo would offer itself as an
alternative to Twitter. The government would have an option of posting its
announcements on platforms like Facebook or Instagram, but their positioning as
social platforms would create a sort of issue that would not come on a
politically positioned platform like Twitter. Twitter’s popularity itself was
an outcome of its extensive use in the colored revolutions that shook North
Africa and Middle East around 2010 onwards. In some ways, Twitter was a product
of political dissent against an established order and thus would perhaps reinforce
its credentials in the left liberal circuit which prides itself on
post-globalist or a platform against nationalism.
In the US, Twitter was an outcome of
the Obama years and given the resurgence of Democrats under Biden, it might be
Twitter expects a lot of support from the US administration. There is a strong
anti-Modi Lutyens lobby which might be electorally weak but vocal in its
assertions and commands an audience in the Western world. This would be
expected to back Twitter in all glory if it suits the anti-Modi agenda. It is immaterial
whether Twitter acts in India’s interests or goes against the national
interests.
Aside of this, there is a strong
right wing economic tendencies in the groups that support PM Modi. They swear on
the market incentives driving the economy and urge PM Modi to do more on this
front. In fact, their main grudge has been too less of market reforms. In a
market driven economy, it goes without saying the firms have a strong say and
the governments are expected to keep themselves out of the economy. In this
context, Twitter has to be challenged purely through market forces and the
government should avoid interference with Twitter. Under market and
economic-right models, the minimum government paradigm would preclude governments
from pressuring the social media platforms to ban inconvenient accounts if one
might term it so. The only option would be an alternative emerging to Twitter
that would force Twitter to adopt to Indian laws. Rather if Twitter loses its
base for its policy, to retain business, it will change its world view at least
in India is concerned. Yet if this were to be followed, it would show PM Modi
in a rather poor light to his supporters who want a ban on the platform. Yet,
any alternatives including a ban would at heart go against the philosophy which
places the private ownership and functioning in the economy along with economic
freedom at a high pedestal.
The law mandates that the
intermediaries are bound to follow the government orders. In case of refusal,
the key employees or those in management of the intermediary platform in
question can be imprisoned and put to trial. Furthermore, the firm in question
can be imposed a heavy fine. The government might be mulling to exercise this
option. This will create some drama for sure given the opposition would be up
in arms but would definitely put pressure on the platform to heed to the government
orders. The popularity of this order would be magnifying given its ostensible
work against India’s interests. Moreover, the alleged interference in India’s
internal affairs would not get traction. The government could ban the platform
unless it sells its India’s operations to a local player something analogous to
US policy on Tik Tok some months back. There is of course glamorous alternative
of nationalizing Twitter. In fact, it would be a good option though not
something in alignment with the right wing economic discourse.
Yet what Twitter’s attitude demonstrates,
is the intended or unintended effects of capitalism in action. When one talks
of free markets, there is a cost benefit analysis. What does get overlooked in
the cost aspect of the same? There is an inherent danger of the firms
exercising their power, especially monopolies to dictate to national
governments. This is not something unusual and has been observed for years. There
is no shortcut for the same. The belief in unbridled capitalism would invite
such instances with little options for the governments. In such a context,
there needs to be non-market alternatives available as nuclear options to rein
in the firms that put themselves on a pedestal. Firms are subject to laws
irrespective of their size. While they seek regulatory capture directly or
indirectly, it must be resisted. The current instance is certainly on wherein
the market principles are simply not going to work. The government must act. The
action in all probability might be backroom arm twisting with some symbolic actions
on the front. The possibility of arrest or a ban might be a last resort. It further
seems that there would be some threat of nationalization as well. Yet, these
are unlikely to emerge as overnight solutions. There would be some negotiations
before the government chooses to exercise the nuclear option. For the moment
however, the showdown is not about if but about when. It is all about timing
the climax.
Comments
Post a Comment