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.

Hit and Run

Rahul Gandhi has turned the charge of alleged ‘vote theft’ into his newest political prop. In recent weeks the Congress Leader of Opposition has accused the Election Commission with increasing stridency of colluding with the interests of the ruling BJP, while alleging mass deletion of voters in Karnataka, and hinting at conspiracies in Maharashtra. His claims were delivered with righteous fury at a press conference, amplified through social media and then abandoned before it can be tested in Parliament or a court of law.


This is a consistent method in Gandhi’s playbook: make a spectacle, stoke suspicion, and slip away from responsibility. At his latest press conference, Gandhi promised more revelations in the coming months, speaking as though Indian democracy itself had been captured. Yet when asked whether he would take his allegations to the judiciary, he airily dismissed the suggestion as not his responsibility. Instead, he cast himself as merely a messenger passing along what citizens and even supposed insiders from the Election Commission had told him.


The Election Commission has not exactly stayed silent. It has issued detailed rebuttals to Gandhi, pointing out that voter rolls cannot be tampered with online and that past attempts at manipulation were caught and investigated by the authorities themselves. Far from shielding wrongdoers, the commission has acted against them. Last month it even challenged Gandhi to back his charges through a sworn affidavit or withdraw them altogether. He refused.


The implications of Rahul’s antics extend beyond India’s borders. To outside observers, the picture Gandhi paints is that of a democracy on life support, its elections rigged. Western governments and media outlets, eager to see evidence of democratic decline in India, seize upon such claims. The damage is not that the allegations are true but that they are incessantly repeated in Goebbelsian fashion by someone who aspires to lead the country. In the battle for perception, Gandhi is irresponsibly lending credibility to a false narrative that India’s electoral system is broken.


Most voters are unlikely to wade through affidavits or legal clarifications. What sticks is the accusation, not the rebuttal. A slogan repeated often enough can harden into belief. By refusing to pursue formal remedies, he shifts the burden of proof onto the EC, forcing it to disprove rumours rather than the accuser proving them.


Serious politicians test their claims in Parliament, in courts, or through evidence. Gandhi instead prefers to cultivate grievance without closure. India deserves a strong opposition is vital to any democracy, but it must be grounded in facts and a willingness to engage with the very institutions it claims to defend. Gandhi’s brand of politics, high on drama, low on responsibility, undermines that project.


He has become less a challenger to power than a provocateur thriving on distrust. His politics of evasion may earn headlines, but they corrode the democratic fabric he professes to champion. Far from saving democracy, he diminishes it daily.


Comments

bottom of page