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.

Concrete Failure

Mumbai has always lived with inconvenience. Its residents have tolerated overcrowded trains and endless traffic snarls during the worst of the seasons and its perpetually crumbling construction with a stoicism unimaginable in most global cities. They have done so because they have long been promised by the ruling class that today’s discomfort will yield tomorrow’s improvement.


However, the recent controversy surrounding the newly opened extension of the Mrinal Tai Gore flyover in Goregaon suggests that this social contract is beginning to fray. Within hours of the flyover’s inauguration, social media was awash with images and complaints about its condition. Users pointed to what appeared to be patchwork repairs and signs of premature deterioration. Some remarked that the road looked unlikely to survive a single monsoon. Others wondered how such work could have been approved for public use in the first place.


The scandal is that citizens found the quality of a Rs. 248-crore project so implausible that they immediately assumed something had gone wrong. The Mrinal Gore flyover fiasco is a reminder that Mumbai’s infrastructure culture has become dangerously comfortable with delay and mediocrity, regardless of which party controls the BMC.


The 750-metre extension had received approval in 2018. It was expected to be completed within two years. Instead, it arrived nearly eight years later after repeated delays, cost revisions and prolonged disruption to local residents. The final bill rose from Rs. 209 crore to approximately Rs. 248 crore, translating to around Rs. 33 lakh per metre – a humongous burden on the taxpayer’s money.


Mumbai’s civic government spends enormous sums on roads, bridges, coastal infrastructure and transport projects. Yet, projects routinely take years longer than promised as budgets routinely expand and deadlines keep shifting.


The supreme irony here is that the flyover is named after Mrinal Tai Gore, a remarkable Socialist leader who spent her political life championing the interests of ordinary Mumbaikars. She became known as the “Paaniwali Bai” because of her relentless campaigns for basic civic amenities.


Mumbai likes to compare itself with global financial centres. Yet no serious global city can sustain its ambitions if infrastructure projects become exercises in endurance rather than efficiency. The issue is not simply potholes or cracks. It is public confidence. Citizens must be able to trust that when a bridge opens, it is safe or when a deadline is announced, it will be met. They must be reassured that when public money is spent, value will be delivered.


The Mrinal Gore flyover controversy should not be dismissed as a social-media storm. It is a warning. Mumbai’s greatest infrastructure challenge is not a shortage of projects but a stark shortage of accountability. Until that changes, every ribbon-cutting ceremony will risk becoming the opening act of another civic embarrassment.

Comments

bottom of page