The new OTT rules
usher in a
new era of perverse
controls
Jawhar Sircar
New Indian Express, 4th
March, 2021
With 53 percent of India’s
100 crore people older than 14 years using WhatsApp, a totally encrypted
messaging platform, it was only a matter of time before government stepped in
to try to find out what on earth is going on. The numbers are staggering: 45
crores watch YouTube while 41 crores are on Facebook. Even so, few were
prepared for the avalanche of instructions that tumbled out on the 25th
of February. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media
Ethics) Rules, 2021, left nothing to imagination but quite a bit to later
disputes. As Mukul Rohatgi, the former Attorney
General, mentioned, rather tactfully, these regulations appear to
be “hasty”.
The new regulations announce the
government’s intention to govern an enormous area of mass communication in the
digital world, perhaps more than the rules applicable to the print media,
television and films. What distinguishes digital communication is its reliance
on OTT or ‘over the top’ technologies that work through ‘cloud storage’ rather than cables or radio waves (that
even television uses). OTT comes in three forms, the first is ‘social media’
platforms or ‘intermediaries’ like
WhatsApp, Twitter and Instagram that only facilitate traffic of messages and
visuals between users. The second consists of ‘online curated content’ like
direct digital transmission of, say, web serials and movies that is offered by Netflix, Amazon Prime, Voot, Hotstar,
etc. This genre became immensely popular during the pandemic when cinema halls
were shut. The third sub-sector relates to ‘digital online news’ that has
beaten the print media in terms of viewership. Though not yet profitable, it
has compelled mainstream media to produce digital versions as well, and they
face new controls. The targets are,
however, originally-digital news services like Firstpost, Sroll, The Quint and
The Wire that are quite vocal against the regime. They could not be cowed down
or won over, like much of mainstream media.
The new rules seek, quite unapologetically,
to superintendent and control each of these three domains, but this is easier
said than done. The field is just too vast and technologies change too rapidly.
To begin with, social media platforms have been directed to check content and
block items that are “defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, invasive
of another’s
privacy, including bodily privacy, insulting or harassing on the basis of
gender, libellous, racially or ethnically objectionable” and so on. These are
pious intentions, but such offences are quite punishable under the existing
laws, as well. What is conspicuously absent in this blacklist is “statement
against religious groups” and vicious hate-propagating trolls who terrorise all dissenters on Twitter and Facebook. The new powers under rule 3(1)(d)
directing platforms to remove certain materials within 36 hours and under rule
4(2) to locate the “originators” of news may well be used only
against dissenters. “Patently false and untrue news” are targeted, but everyone
knows that these are systematically produced by powerful, politically-backed
groups. One only hopes that the new regulations succeed in ridding the net of
pornographic, paedophilic or non-consensual intimate visuals, as intended.
The second domain, i.e., streaming
films through OTT (called ‘online curated content’) and the third, ‘online
news’, are now subject to strict categorisation, code of ethics and an
elaborate mechanism of grievance-disposal. Films have not only to clearly
indicate the level of audience aimed for, but follow a rigorous
all-encompassing code. While some policing may have been necessary, one hopes
that this does not stifle creativity and counter culture. The catch, however,
lies in ‘grievances’ voiced literally by any person and such grievances now
have three levels of disposal. The first is through self-regulation and then by
appeal to industry associations. The latter have to set up adjudicatory bodies
headed by a senior judge who is screened by the government. If this does not
give relief, the aggrieved can approach the government, that can then play god.
The dissatisfaction will be decided by a high-sounding ‘oversight mechanism’
which is basically a committee consisting of officials from eight ministries —
irrespective of whether they understand the nuances or not. Thus, a single
person who feels his sensitivity or sensibility is ‘hurt’ by
either a digital news item or by an online film or web series can soon play
havoc. We may recall how the web series called Tandav faced strong allegations
of insulting one religion and its producers had to run from court to court to
ward off arrest.
With such an ever-increasing tendency
of the self righteous to be alarmed at perceived slights to one’s religion and
culture, this ‘oversight mechanism’ is likely to be quite overburdened by
complaints. The very mechanism may simply backfire. In any case, even the best
of intentions always find a way of getting ‘caged’ in the wonderland of
bureaucracy. One can foresee the ‘Authorised Officer’ under rule 13,
probably a joint secretary of the information and broadcasting ministry,
presiding over the destiny of India’s culture and tradition. The regulations
are surely creating another Frankenstein, who will exercise his powers as
“desired by the minister” and those who direct the minister. The attempt to
tame troublesome online news portals and instil traditional virtues in OTT
films and web series is surely ushering in a new era of perverse controls.
No comments:
Post a Comment