top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Algorithmic Anarchy

The NEET paper leak protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar should have remained a legitimate expression of student anger over the collapse of examination integrity. Instead, as the agitation escalated into clashes with the police, abusive sloganeering and an increasingly radical political campaign, Meta’s algorithms emerged as an invisible force multiplying the unrest. The controversy surrounding the brief removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message to the youth in the aftermath of the...

Algorithmic Anarchy

The NEET paper leak protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar should have remained a legitimate expression of student anger over the collapse of examination integrity. Instead, as the agitation escalated into clashes with the police, abusive sloganeering and an increasingly radical political campaign, Meta’s algorithms emerged as an invisible force multiplying the unrest. The controversy surrounding the brief removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message to the youth in the aftermath of the protests only reinforces that concern. Meta has attributed the takedown to a “technical glitch” and apologised. But when the world’s largest social media platform can temporarily suppress the message of the elected leader of the world’s largest democracy during a politically charged moments, the issue extends well beyond a single deleted post. Who decides what India sees? That question has become impossible to ignore during the Cockroach Janta Party’s protests. Across Instagram and Facebook, users have reported being inundated with CJP videos, reels and protest clips despite never following the organisation or engaging with similar political content. Whether this resulted from coordinated paid collaborations, recommendation algorithms or both deserves a thorough investigation. But the larger democratic concern is that public opinion is increasingly being mediated not by citizens, journalists or elected representatives, but by opaque algorithms designed in Silicon Valley and optimised for engagement rather than democratic responsibility. Meta’s recommendation engine is not a passive notice board. Every piece of political content that reaches millions has first been selected by an algorithm whose workings remain largely hidden from public scrutiny. This is hardly unique to India. Around the world, Meta has repeatedly been accused of amplifying polarisation, misinformation and political extremism because outrage keeps users engaged. From elections to ethnic conflicts and episodes of civil unrest, the company has faced persistent criticism that its commercial incentives reward divisive content over balanced discourse. Democracies cannot afford to outsource the architecture of public debate to corporations whose primary obligation is to shareholders rather than constitutional values. While citizens are entitled to challenge governments and demand accountability, there is an important distinction between a movement that expands because people are persuaded and one that appears to be algorithmically amplified into omnipresence. Equally disturbing has been the normalisation of abusive political language during the protests. When such content is repeatedly amplified through recommendation systems, platforms cease to be neutral intermediaries and become active participants in degrading democratic discourse. Platforms that influence elections, protests and public opinion must explain how political recommendations are generated and why particular narratives receive extraordinary amplification. Silicon Valley companies insist they are merely technology platforms. But their algorithms increasingly exercise editorial power. When software determines which protests dominate national conversations and whose voices disappear, technology has already become politics.

Arm Twisting

Markets are adept at sniffing out power plays disguised as policy. Reliance Industries’ wobble this week, nearly 4 percent off its value which dragged the Nifty with I —was officially attributed to profit-taking, crude-sourcing jitters and global uncertainty. Beneath the market jargon lays a more corrosive force of American high-handedness with US President Donald Trump once again using oil as a cudgel and India as a convenient pressure point.


Reliance makes for a revealing case study. The company had touched a 52-week high, inviting routine profit-booking. Yet the sharper edge of investor anxiety came from confusion over Russian crude. A report claiming tankers were headed to Jamnagar was swiftly denied by the firm. Reliance clarified that it had not received Russian oil for weeks and did not expect any in January. For investors, the subtext is that discounted Russian crude had bolstered refining margins and its absence could squeeze them.


This, buying cheap oil is no longer merely a business decision but a diplomatic act scrutinised and punished by Washington. Trump had earlier imposed a 25 percent ‘secondary’ tariff on Indian goods, explicitly citing New Delhi’s continued imports of Russian crude sending out a blunt message that if anyone trades with whom America disapproves of, they will have to pay a heavy price regardless of domestic law, economic logic or strategic autonomy.


Trump has further warned that tariffs could be raised further if India does not fall into line.


America insists these measures are about starving Russia of revenue amid the war in Ukraine. Yet the record is riddled with convenient inconsistencies. When global oil prices threaten American inflation, Russian barrels find their way into markets through tolerable intermediaries. When others - India chief among them - secure visible benefits from discounted crude, principle hardens into punishment.


India imports more than four-fifths of its crude. Every dollar shaved off the import bill eases inflation, steadies the rupee and cushions consumers. Russian oil offers such relief. Reliance had even reduced its purchases after Washington sanctioned Lukoil and Rosneft in late November.


By turning oil flows into ‘loyalty’ tests, America is corroding the very rules-based order it claims to uphold. Secondary sanctions and punitive tariffs extend American jurisdiction far beyond its borders, weaponizing the dollar and the market access it controls. The longer-term consequence of Trump’s adversarial tactics will lead to fragmentation in form of parallel supply chains, alternative payment systems and a growing determination among middle powers to hedge against American caprice.


While Reliance’s share-price dip will pass, the larger damage is subtler. Each episode of arm-twisting reinforces the lesson that partnership with America comes with conditions unilaterally set and casually enforced.


A country that champions free markets now polices them with tariffs and threats. Trump and his advisers ought to realize that while high-handedness may temporarily intimidate investors, it accelerates the search for a world in which Washington’s hand is easier to shrug off.

Comments

bottom of page