top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Platform Politics

Meta’s apology to the Government of India revives the uncomfortable question of who really controls the flow of political information in today’s turbulent times, the voter or the platform? When the world’s largest social media company admits that it wrongly restricted Prime Minister Modi’s post during a volatile moment in Indian democracy, the issue extends far beyond a single moderation error. Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, apologised to Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw...

Platform Politics

Meta’s apology to the Government of India revives the uncomfortable question of who really controls the flow of political information in today’s turbulent times, the voter or the platform? When the world’s largest social media company admits that it wrongly restricted Prime Minister Modi’s post during a volatile moment in Indian democracy, the issue extends far beyond a single moderation error. Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, apologised to Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw for restricting the PM’s post, attributing the incident to an ‘operational’ mistake. That explanation does not answer the larger concerns surrounding Meta’s role in shaping political narratives in India. Technology companies insist that they are neutral conduits. But experience suggests otherwise. Their algorithms decide what millions see, what remains invisible and what goes viral. As was evinced in protests in Nepal and Bangladesh, those decisions have influenced public opinion profoundly as any political campaign. These questions are particularly serious given the allegations surrounding the campaign mounted by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), which spearheaded the protests over the NEET paper leak. The degeneration of the protests has raised strong suspicions that the protests were hardly organic but receiving paid amplification on social media. Public opinion in a democracy should be shaped by genuine public sentiment and not by opaque algorithms operating inside corporate headquarters thousands of kilometres away. This is not simply about Narendra Modi or the BJP. It is about India’s sovereignty over its own democratic conversation. Elections, protests and political debates must be decided by Indians, not by Western recommendation engines whose workings remain secret and whose executives answer primarily to shareholders in California. If Meta has nothing to hide, it should voluntarily disclose whether content relating to the CJP protests received preferential treatment, whether any exceptional amplification occurred, who authorised it and under what policies. Transparency, and not carefully worded apologies, is the only credible response. No democracy can permit foreign technology companies to become unelected arbiters of its political discourse. When they amplify selectively, they risk manufacturing political momentum that appears organic but may not be. The concern is not confined to one company. Increasingly, global technology corporations possess powers once reserved for states. They curate information, moderate speech, recommend narratives and determine digital visibility for billions. Yet they operate with limited public accountability. That imbalance between influence and responsibility is becoming one of the defining democratic challenges of the digital age. If Meta can inadvertently silence the elected Indian Prime Minister, we are entitled to ask what else its invisible systems may have amplified, buried or shaped without their knowledge.

Knives out in legislature

Updated: Mar 21, 2025

Disha Salian

Mumbai: Death of celebrity manager Disha Salian in 2020 once again rocked the Maharashtra legislature on Thursday. While cabinet ministers Nitesh Rane and Shambhuraj Desai demanded that Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray be arrested in the case, BJP MLA Amit Satam in the assembly and another BJP member Chitra Wagh in the council demanded that the report of SIT to probe Salian’s death be made public.


Incidentally, amidst repeated disruptions in both the houses, some members from the treasury benches were seen speaking in favour of Aditya Thackeray, while Shiv Sena (UBT) members like Adv Anil Parab were seen supporting the BJP members’ demand that the report of the SIT probe be made public. In addition, there were allegations and counter allegations and personal accusations among members from the treasury and opposition benches which led to heated debate on occasions.


The opposition termed the attempts from the treasury benches to link Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray’s name in the case, as a ‘conspiracy’.


“I think this matter has gone to the court. We have no idea what he (Disha’s father) has said, but Aaditya Thackeray is a mature leader, a young leader. The Bharatiya Janata Party is conspiring to defame him by putting pressure on him. We don’t need to answer to this conspiracy. The court will answer,” Ambadas Danve said.


Earlier in the day, when the house gathered for the business, Minister of State for Home appraised the assembly of the status in this case. “SIT has been formed to probe in the case. Their report has not been received as yet. However, the government shall act according to directives from the court,” the minister told the house.


Another BJP minister Nitesh Rane, however, said that since Satish Salian has levelled allegations against an MVA minister, that leader be treated like a common person and that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Shiv Sena minister Shambhuraj Desai too supported the demand. “Since the allegations are grave, the person in question should be immediately arrested and the case be investigated,” he said.


Later, while speaking to media in the legislature premises, Rane asked Uddhav Thackeray to come clean on the issue. “If they say that we are politicizing the issue, Uddhav Thackeray should also tell the people why he had called, not just once but twice, to the then union minister Narayan Rane urging him to save his son?” Rane said.


He also accused the opposition of shying away from coming clean on the issue. “If they feel that we are not telling the truth, they should say so in the house. But they are shying away from doing so. Bhaskar Jadhav, who is always aggressive, was nowhere to be seen when this issue came up in the house. Sunil Prabhu too escaped the house under the pretext of a phone call. I challenge them to say that whatever I said on the issue is wrong,” Rane said.


He also said that Aditya Thackeray should resign on moral grounds till his name is cleared in the case.


BJP MLA Amit Satam demanded that the details of the SIT probe be made public so that the people would know if the probe is headed in right direction.


Interestingly, while the ruling parties were targeting the opposition in the case, senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar surprised all with his unexpected support to Thackerays. “I do not have any evidences in the case. But if her father has made any fresh allegations that needs to be investigated thoroughly. The assembly can discuss the issue at length tomorrow. In the meanwhile, members like Rane, who seem to have some evidences in the case should hand them over to the investigating agencies and help the probe,” he told the house.


Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Gaikwad and Sheetal Mhatre too toed the line and demanded that more and more evidences should come forth.


Similarly, when members of treasury benches were pushing for revealing the details of the probe till date to the public, Shiv Sena (UBT) member Anil Parab supported the demand. “Doing that shall conclusively prove the innocence of Aditya Thackeray,” he said.

Comments

bottom of page