In early July 2017, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes for the Protection of Scheduled Tribes directed YouTube to remove all pornographic videos related to the protected Jarawa tribes of the Andaman Islands. The YouTube videos, though under simplistic titles like 'Jarawa Development', were depicting Jarawas as naked, primitive, and illiterate. Shouldn't they prioritize Indian laws over the companies policy?
We emailed YouTube, stating that physical contact with Jarawas is prohibited, and clarified that the video was made without their permission, which amounts to a breach of their identity. Our messages kept floating around as YouTube did not have an official presence in India. We also wrote to the head of Google India but did not get a satisfactory reply.
A few days later, we received a written response from Google India: 'Google services, such as YouTube, are provided by YouTube LLC, the companies incorporated and governed by the laws of the United States. Google India cannot assist you in this regard' Will get it.
This is an example of how social media intermediaries dodge government investigations even in cases that violate local laws. The need to have a Chief Compliance Officer and Nodal Officer resident in India, guided by the new Intermediary Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information Technology, becomes particularly relevant in the backdrop of the apathy described above.
Social media company Twitter had reportedly said before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology that they would comply with Indian laws but only within the framework of their company's policies of freedom of expression, privacy, and transparency. Shouldn't they give priority to Indian laws over their company's policy?
Twitter appears to have garnered support from the international media and academia by cleverly labeling the tweets of certain political functionaries of a particular political party as "manipulated media" in the hope that the US government might intervene. Twitter forgot that even the US government does not allow them to violate its laws.
Does this mean that even if they have a compliance officer, they will voluntarily ignore Indian law? Therefore, petitions to decriminalize violations of local laws. By other compliant entities (Google, WhatsApp, etc.) have to be viewed from a broader perspective. India is a sensitive country in light of its history of communal affairs.
Any word, news, picture, or video can have a wide social and public impact. Especially if the information is malicious and misleading. No social media company in India should be allowed to get excited by saying that company policy. It is more important to them than the local law of the country. Instead of the cumbersome process currently followed by the Ministry of Information Technology. A designated nodal officer should be tasked with two-way interactions with social media companies on a broader basis.
