- Nishikant Dubey highlighted social media algorithms favour street groups over political parties
- Anti-reservation forum gained 7 million followers in days due to algorithmic preference, he said
- Meta India's removal of PM Modi's video raised concerns about safe harbour protections
The chief of India's parliamentary panel on IT has shared some numbers that showed a vast difference in the growth of social media handles of new and unrecognised street groups compared to established political parties.
Nishikant Dubey, who heads the parliamentary standing committee on IT, indicated that algorithms used by major tech firms prioritise street-level provocations over recognised national political voices.
"What Meta India did, what X did, what YouTube did, the country should know. If you look at the algorithm for BJP, Congress, Samajwadi Party and Aam Aadmi Party, that is only 23 million. And those who are neither a registered party nor an NGO, under some kind of provocation on the streets, their algorithm is 27 million," Dubey told reporters in Delhi today after meeting executives of social media giants.
"All political parties combined are at 23-24 million, whereas they are alone there," he added, without naming anyone.
He cited an example from nearly a week ago. "An anti-reservation forum was formed 5-6 days ago; it is at 7 million. And the reason for that is they have a policy that they will give preference to new people, and they will not give preference to old people," Dubey said.
The satirical campaign Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), too, had gained over 6.6 million followers on Instagram just days after it surfaced. At that time, the BJP had some 8.7 million followers on the same social media platform, while the Congress had 13.2 million followers. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) had 1.9 million followers.
Dubey said the non-partisan committee was unanimous on all issues at the meeting today. The panel asked several questions - including on the removal of a video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi - to Facebook's parent Meta, owned by Mark Zuckerberg.
Meta's offer of apology at the meeting over the video row should come from Zuckerberg himself, Dubey said. Otherwise, he added, the platform would lose 'safe harbour' protection on three-four issues. The 'safe harbour' clause in India's law shields online platforms and ISPs from liability for third-party content they host, as long as they practice due diligence.
"Meta India removed the prime minister's content. This is not the first time Meta India has done this. If you recall, Zuckerberg himself made a statement in January regarding the 2024 elections and later apologised. This shows that his intention is to destabilise the country," Dubey told reporters.
The parliamentary committee pointed out instances of Meta's failure to tackle illegal and harmful content, particularly child sexual abuse material (CSAM), on its platforms.
"Child sexual abuse material is another issue. YouTube also has that content. Meta also has that content, and they do not remove content related to child abuse. They do not remove content related to women. On both, the rules of the government of India are very strict, and on top of that, they do not listen to the Home Ministry. They do not listen to the IT Ministry either. So, we have said that in all these matters, and in many other matters, you know that the chief minister of the Congress government of Telangana has filed an FIR against Meta India. We have said that safe harbours should be removed in all these matters," Dubey said.
In February 2024, Zuckerberg had apologised to families at a US Senate hearing about the impact that social media had on children. Under prodding from a Republican senator, Zuckerberg stood up and addressed families who held up pictures of their children who they said had been harmed by social media.
He was also shown a video in which children spoke about being bullied on social media platforms. Some recounted stories of young people taking their own lives after being extorted for money after sharing photos with sexual predators.
The committee highlighted hypocrisy on community moderation. "They will put up a community note, which will contain abusive language. And their own policy that there shouldn't be abusive language, there shouldn't be harassment... they do not follow their own policy."
