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.

Sexual Harassment Of Women In Films

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

The main functions of cinema are – entertainment, education, information and social change. How does sexual harassment enter into this medium that has been bringing colour and sound and music and romance intoour lives for ages? But this is true and has made its invisible but strong presence felt not only by those who are involved in the industry, men, women and children but also by the audience in the country which produces the largest number of films in the world.

Broadly stated, sexual harassment is defined as any attention of a sexual nature in the context of the work situation which has the effect of making a woman uncomfortable on the job. It can manifest itself in looks, jokes, gestures, bawdy remarks or plain propositions. A large section of women employees faces sexual harassment in varied degrees. Some are presented with the unpleasant alternative of putting up with it, possibly giving in to it, or looking for another job or a less attractive posting without any guarantee that the same thing would not happen at the new place.

The biggest drawback is that its threat keeps many women out of certain occupations and places where such behaviour is implicit in the very nature of the job itself. For young girls and women of all ages, cinema is the most potent field for sexual exploitation protected from any kind of legal penalisation because the victims are unified by an unspoken wall of silence.

“Degi Kya?” asks a filmmaker of an assistant who approaches him to espouse the cause of a young girl aspiring for stardom. He brushes away her talent and beauty with two simple words.

This scene from Madhur Bhandarkar’s Page 3 exposes the ugly face of stardom, especially for the female of the species. The starlet, who refuses to compromise, is seen cavorting with the same filmmaker later in the film.

Interestingly, Bhandarkar himself happened to be in the eye of a storm when an aspiring starlet Preeti Jain accused him of ‘using’ her under false promises of marriage. Why did the furore gainst Bhandarkar fade away with the girl being made to look as if she was making false accusations? Because Bhandarkar was famous and powerful while Jain no one had heard of till she came out with this accusation. Bhandarkar gave up his plans to go ahead with his film Casting Couch, a logical extension of Page 3. But this came out in a later film Fashion.

On the eve of Women’s Day, it would be interesting to unfold contradictions that sustain within the woman question to find out whether women are still more sinned against than sinning.

Many years ago, Parveen Babi, when asked whether she was a virgin, retorted – ‘there are no virgins in filmdom. If you believe there are, you would still find men doing female roles.’ Veteran actress Nadira said that the word ‘industry’ linked to film gave it a dignity it does not deserve. “It is a racket, not an industry,”she said.

Among the quitters, one recalls Savita Dhanrajgir, a beautiful model from a royal family who wanted to make it in films. She recorded her bitter experience about the casting couch where one had to go bed hopping, from financier to producer to director to hero. The small ones do it for any role. The big names do it for plum ones.

In Clap-Trap, a documentary on junior artistes, Jill Misquitta shows how female ‘extras’ are sexually exploited by the middle-men who give them their daily contract. This is sexual harassment where sex is not consensual at all but forced.

In the film Luck By Chance, we find a young runaway girl who came down to Mumbai to become an actress, persuaded to sleep with a director under the false promise that she will be the main female lead in his next film. This never happens and we find her doing cameos in television soaps and serials and accepting her fate.

(Tomorrow: What Hema Committee Report changed?)

Comments

bottom of page