#Factcheck-Allu Arjun visits Shiva temple after success of Pushpa 2? No, image is from 2017

Introduction

Google’s search engine is widely known for its ability to tailor its search results based on user activity, enhancing the relevance of search outcomes. Recently, Google introduced the ‘Try Without Personalisation’ feature. This feature allows users to view results independent of their prior activity. This change marks a significant shift in platform experiences, offering users more control over their search experience while addressing privacy concerns. 

However, even in this non-personalised mode, certain contextual factors including location, language, and device type, continue to influence results. This essentially provides the search with a baseline level of relevance. This feature carries significant policy implications, particularly in the areas of privacy, consumer rights, and market competition. 

Understanding the Feature

When users engage with this option of non-personalised search, it will no longer show them helpful individual results that are personalisation-dependent and will instead provide unbiased search results. Essentially,this feature provides users with neutral (non-personalised) search results by bypassing their data. 

This feature allows the following changes:

• Disables the user’s ability to find past searches in Autofill/Autocomplete.
• Does not pause or delete stored activity within a user’s Google account. Users, because of this feature, will be able to pause or delete stored activity through data and privacy controls.
• The feature doesn't delete or disable app/website preferences like language or search settings are some of the unaffected preferences.
• It also does not disable or delete the material that users save.
• When a user is signed in, they can ‘turn off the personalisation’ by clicking on the search option at the end of the webpage. These changes, offered by the feature, in functionality, have significant implications for privacy, competition, and user trust.

Policy Implications: An Analysis

This feature aligns with global privacy frameworks such as the GDPR in the EU and the DPDP Act in India. By adhering to principles like data minimisation and user consent, it offers users control over their data and the choice to enable or disable personalisation, thereby enhancing user autonomy and trust. 

However, there is a trade-off between user expectations for relevance and the impartiality of non-personalised results. Additionally, the introduction of such features may align with emerging regulations on data usage, transparency, and consent. Policymakers play a crucial role in encouraging innovations like these while ensuring they safeguard user rights and maintain a competitive market.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

Google's 'Try Without Personalisation' feature represents a pivotal moment for innovation by balancing user privacy with search functionality. By aligning with global privacy frameworks such as the GDPR and the DPDP Act, it empowers users to control their data while navigating the complex interplay between relevance and neutrality. However, its success hinges on overcoming technical hurdles, fostering user understanding, and addressing competitive and regulatory scrutiny. As digital platforms increasingly prioritise transparency, such features could redefine user expectations and regulatory standards in the evolving tech ecosystem.

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/google-search-results-try-without-personalisation-new-feature-9710243/ 
• https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/12410098?hl=en 
• https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/5/24314402/google-turn-off-personalized-search-results

Introduction

On 20th March 2024, the Indian government notified the Fact Check Unit (FCU) under the Press Information Bureau (PIB) of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as the Fact Check Unit (FCU) of the Central Government. This PIB FCU is notified under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 (IT Amendment Rules 2023).

However, the next day, on 21st March 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the Centre's decision. The IT Amendment Rules of 2023 provide that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) can notify a fact-checking body to identify and tag what it considers fake news with respect to any activity of the Centre. The stay will be in effect till the Bombay High Court finally decides the challenges to the IT Rules amendment 2023.

The official notification dated 20th March 2024 read as follows:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (v) of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Central Government hereby notifies the Fact Check Unit under the Press Information Bureau of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as the fact check unit of the Central Government for the purposes of the said sub-clause, in respect of any business of the Central Government.”

Impact of the notification

The impact of notifying PIB’s FCU under Rule 3(1)(b)(v)will empower the PIB’s FCU to issue direct takedown directions to the concerned Intermediary. Any information posted on social media in relation to the business of the central government that has been flagged as fake or false by the FCU has to be taken down by the concerned intermediary. If it fails to do so, it will lose the 'safe harbour' immunity against legal proceedings arising out of such information posted offered under Section 79 of IT Act, 2000.

Safe harbour provision u/s 79 of IT Act, 2000

Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 serves as a safe harbour provision for intermediaries. The provision states that "an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him". However, it is notable that this legal immunity cannot be granted if the intermediary "fails to expeditiously" take down a post or remove a particular content after the government or its agencies flag that the information is being used unlawfully. Furthermore, intermediaries are obliged to observe due diligence on their platforms.

Rule 3 (1)(b)(v) Under IT Amendment Rules 2023

Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of The Information Technology(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [updated as on 6.4.2023] provides that all intermediaries [Including a social media intermediary, a significant social media intermediary and an online gaming intermediary], are required to make "reasonable efforts” or perform due diligence to ensure that their users do not "host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share” any information that “deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of the message or knowingly and intentionally communicates any misinformation or information which is patently false and untrue or misleading in nature or, in respect of any business of the Central Government, is identified as fake or false or misleading by such fact check unit of the Central Government as the Ministry may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify”.

PIB - FCU

The PIB - Fact Check Unit(FCU) was established in November 2019 to prevent the spread of fake news and misinformation about the Indian government. It also provides an accessible platform for people to report suspicious or questionable information related to the Indian government. This FCU is responsible for countering misinformation on government policies, initiatives, and schemes. The FCU is tasked with addressing misinformation about government policies, initiatives, and schemes, either directly (Suo moto) or through complaints received. On 20th March 2024,via a gazetted notification, the Centre notified the Press Information Bureau's fact-check unit (FCU) as the nodal agency to flag fake news or misinformation related to the central government. However, The Supreme Court stayed the Centre's notification of the Fact-Check Unit under IT Amendment Rules 2023.

Concerns with IT Amendment Rules 2023

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology(MeitY) amended the IT Rules of 2021. The ‘Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023’ (IT Amendment Rules 2023) were notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on 6 April 2023. The rules introduced new provisions to establish a fact-checking unit with respect to “any business of the central government” and also made other provisions pertaining to online gaming.

The Constitutional validity of  IT Amendment Rules 2023 has been challenged through a writ petition challenging the IT Rules 2023 in the Bombay High Court. The contention is that the rules raise "serious constitutional questions," and Rule 3(1)(b)(v), as amended in 2023, impacts the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression would fall for analysis by the High Court.

Supreme Court Stays Setting up of FCU

A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandra Hud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra convened to hear Special Leave Petitions filed by Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India and the Association of Indian Magazines challenging the refusal of the Bombay High Court to stay the implementation of the IT Rules 2023. The Supreme Court has stayed the Union's notification of the Fact-Check Unit under the IT Amendment Rules 2023, pending the Bombay High Court's decision on the challenges to the IT Rules Amendment 2023.

Emphasizing Freedom of Speech in the Democratic Environment

The advent of advanced technology has also brought with it a new generation of threats and concerns: the misuse of said technology in the form of deepfakes and misinformation is one of the most pressing concerns plaguing society today. This realization has informed the critical need for stringent regulatory measures. The government is rightly prioritizing the need to immediately address digital threats, but there must be a balance between our digital security policies and the need to respect free speech and critical thinking. The culture of open dialogue is the bedrock of democracy. The ultimate truth is shaped through free trade in ideas within a competitive marketplace of ideas. The constitutional scheme of democracy places great importance on the fundamental value of liberty of thought and expression, which has also been emphasized by the Supreme Court in its various judgements.

The IT Rules, 2023,provide for creating a "fact check unit" to identify fake or false or misleading information “in relation to any business of the central government "This move raised concerns within the media fraternity, who argued that the determination of fake news cannot be placed solely in the hands of the government. It is also worth noting that if users post something illegal, they can still be punished under laws that already exist in the country.

We must take into account that freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution is not an absolute right. Article 19(2) imposes restrictions on the Right to Freedom of Speech and expression. Hence, there has to be a balance between regulatory measures and citizens' fundamental rights.

Nowadays, the term ‘fake news’ is used very loosely. Additionally, there is a dearth of clearly established legal parameters that define what amounts to fake or misleading information. Clear definitions of the terms should be established to facilitate certainty as to what content is ‘fake news’ and what content is not. Any such restriction on speech must align with the exceptions outlined in Article19(2) of the Constitution.

Conclusion

Through a government notification, PIB - FCU was intended to act as a government-run fact-checking body to verify any information about the Central Government. However, the apex court of India stayed the Centre's notification. Now, the matter is sub judice, and we hope for the judicial analysis of the validity of IT Amendment Rules 2023.

Notably, the government is implementing measures to combat misinformation in the digital world, but it is imperative that we strive for a balance between regulatory checks and individual rights. As misinformation spreads across all sectors, a centralised approach is needed in order to tackle it effectively. Regulatory reforms must take into account the crucial roleplayed by social media in today’s business market: a huge amount of trade and commerce takes place online or is informed by digital content, which means that the government must introduce policies and mechanisms that continue to support economic activity. Collaborative efforts between the government and its agencies, technological companies, and advocacy groups are needed to deal with the issue better at a higher level.

References

• https://egazette.gov.in/(S(xzwt4b4haaqja32xqdiksbju))/ViewPDF.aspx
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2015792
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/govt-notifies-fact-checking-unit-under-pib-to-check-fake-news-misinformation-related-to-centre/articleshow/108653787.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.epw.in/journal/2023/43/commentary/it-amendment-rules-2023.html#:~:text=The%20Information%20Technology%20Amendment%20Rules,to%20be%20false%20or%20misleading
• ‍https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-kunal-kamra-editors-guild-notifying-fact-check-unit-it-rules-2023-252998
• ‍https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/21/india-top-court-stays-government-move-to-form-fact-check-unit-under-it-laws
• ‍https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Information%20Technology 28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital% 20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006.04.2023%29-.pdf
• 2024 SCC On Line Bom 360

‍

Introduction

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Minister of State at the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, has emphasised the need for an open internet. He stated that no platform can deny content creators access to distribute and monetise content and that large technology companies have begun to play a significant role in the digital evolution. Chandrasekhar emphasised that the government does not want the internet or monetisation to be in the purview of just one or two companies and does not want 120 crore Indians on the internet in 2025 to be catered to by big islands on the internet.

The Voice for Open Internet 

India's Minister of State for IT, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, has stated that no technology company or social media platform can deny content creators access to distribute and monetise their content. Speaking at the Digital News Publishers Association Conference in Delhi, Chandrasekhar emphasized that the government does not want the internet or monetization of the internet to be in the hands of just one or two companies. He argued that the government does not like monopoly or duopoly and does not want 120 crore Indians on the Internet in 2025 to be catered to by big islands on the internet.

Chandrasekhar highlighted that large technology companies have begun to exert influence when it comes to the dissemination of content, which has become an area of concern for publishers and content creators. He stated that if any platform finds it necessary to block any content, they need to give reasons or grounds to the creators, stating that the content is violating norms.

As India tries to establish itself as an innovator in the technology sector, a recent corpus of Rs 1 lakh crore was announced by the government in the interim Budget of 2024-25. As big companies continue to tighten their stronghold on the sector, content moderation has become crucial. Under the IT Rules Act, 11 types of categories are unlawful under IT Act and criminal law. Platforms must ensure no user posts content that falls under these categories, take down any such content, and gateway users to either de-platforming or prosecuting. Chandrasekhar believes that the government has to protect the fundamental rights of people and emphasises legislative guardrails to ensure platforms are accountable for the correctness of the content.

Monetizing Content on the Platform

No platform can deny a content creator access to the platform to distribute and monetise it,' Chandrasekhar declared, boldly laying down a gauntlet that defies the prevailing norms. This tenet signals a nascent dawn where creators may envision reaping the rewards borne of their creative endeavours unfettered by platform restrictions.

An increasingly contentious issue that shadows this debate is the moderation of content within the digital realm. In this vast uncharted expanse, the powers that be within these monolithic platforms assume the mantle of vigilance—policing the digital avenues for transgressions against a conscribed code of conduct. Under the stipulations of India's IT Rules Act, for example, platforms are duty-bound to interdict user content that strays into territories encompassing a spectrum of 11 delineated unlawful categories. Violations span the gamut from the infringement of intellectual property rights to the propagation of misinformation—each category necessitating swift and decisive intervention. He raised the alarm against misinformation—a malignant growth fed by the fertile soils of innovation—a phenomenon wherein media reports chillingly suggest that up to half of the information circulating on the internet might be a mere fabrication, a misleading simulacrum of authenticity.

The government's stance, as expounded by Chandrasekhar, pivots on an axis of safeguarding citizens' fundamental rights, compelling digital platforms to shoulder the responsibility of arbiters of truth. 'We are a nation of over 90 crores today, a nation progressing with vigour, yet we find ourselves beset by those who wish us ill,' 

Upcoming Digital India Act

Awaiting upon the horizon, India's proposed Digital India Act (DIA), still in its embryonic stage of pre-consultation deliberation, seeks to sculpt these asymmetries into a more balanced form. Chandrasekhar hinted at the potential inclusion within the DIA of regulatory measures that would sculpt the interactions between platforms and the mosaic of content creators who inhabit them. Although specifics await the crucible of public discourse and the formalities of consultation, indications of a maturing framework are palpable.

Conclusion 

It is essential that the fable of digital transformation reverberates with the voices of individual creators, the very lifeblood propelling the vibrant heartbeat of the internet's culture. These are the voices that must echo at the centre stage of policy deliberations and legislative assembly halls; these are the visions that must guide us, and these are the rights that we must uphold. As we stand upon the precipice of a nascent digital age, the decisions we forge at this moment will cascade into the morrow and define the internet of our future. This internet must eternally stand as a bastion of freedom, of ceaseless innovation and as a realm of boundless opportunity for every soul that ventures into its infinite expanse with responsible use. 

References 

• https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-no-platform-can-deny-a-content-creator-access-to-distribute-and-monetise-content-says-mos-it-rajeev-chandrasekhar-3386388/
• https://indianexpress.com/article/india/meta-content-monetisation-social-media-it-rules-rajeev-chandrasekhar-9147334/
• https://www.medianama.com/2024/02/223-rajeev-chandrasekhar-content-creators-publishers/

‍