The Siddaramaiah government in Karnataka has just approved a powerful artificial intelligence system that will monitor everything people post on social media. The name is SMAS—Social Media Analytics Solution. The cost is Rs 67 crore rupees. This decision has already started a huge fight between privacy advocates and security supporter
First, what is SMAS? Think of it as a giant robot with super intelligence that reads every single post, comment, and message on social media in Karnataka. It works 24/7, analysing millions of pieces of content every day. The government says it will find fake news, hate speech, abuse, and misinformation. It will also track if terrorist groups use social media to recruit people. The system can recognise patterns that humans might miss. Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister of Karnataka H.K. Patil says this is necessary because social media has become too big for human beings to monitor properly. Millions of posts happen every second. Traditional police cannot read everything. So technology needs to do the job faster and more efficiently.
But here is where things get complicated and deeply concerning. Critics are asking very difficult questions that officials are not answering clearly. Who decides what is fake news and what is real? What is hate speech and what is legitimate criticism? If someone posts that a government policy is bad, is that fake news or free speech? If someone criticises a political leader, is that hate speech or fair comment? A news article supporting the government might mark certain posts as fake news. The same posts might be defended by opposition parties as fair criticism.
“Imagine a farmer posts online, saying, 'The government is not giving us fair price for our crops.' Is this fake news or true complaint? What if the SMAS system, controlled by the government, marks this as fake news and removes it? Suddenly, the farmer's voice is silenced. Critics fear the government will use this system to silence opposition and control what people can say online. In countries like China, similar surveillance systems have been used to suppress voices against the government. The same thing could happen here,” said space and defence analyst Girish Linganna who also follows local state developments too.
The second big concern is privacy invasion. “Every text you send, every opinion you share will be scanned by a government computer. You did not agree to this. The government says there is "absolutely no restriction" on scanning content. But that is exactly the problem! Having power and using it responsibly are two different things. Your personal conversations, your family discussions, your private thoughts—all could be analysed by machines and humans working for the government,” added Linganna.
There have also been concerns about its misuse potential. Governments change. Today's government might use SMAS properly. But what about tomorrow? What if a corrupt leader uses SMAS to track political enemies? History shows surveillance tools are often misused once created. Even well-meaning systems become weapons in wrong hands. Many democracies have learned this lesson the hard way.
The government says SMAS is needed for national security and public order. They point to terrorists recruiting online and misinformation causing riots. These are real problems that need solutions. But the cure might be worse than the disease itself.
Experts point out that we need to stop fake news online. Creating a surveillance system without proper laws, independent oversight, and clear rules is dangerous and undemocratic. We need a strong law made by Parliament with checks and balances. We need independent judges deciding if something is fake, not just government computers making decisions.
The real political row is about power and control. Who controls information reaching people? When government has this much power, misuse is always possible. Countries with strong democracies have strict laws protecting what people can say online.
“Critics argue that such a system could enable state surveillance and selective targeting of dissent, particularly in the absence of clearly defined safeguards, transparency norms or independent oversight. Civil rights groups warn that vague definitions of “fake news” or “harmful content” could have a chilling effect on free speech. The controversy is sharpened by context. Karnataka had earlier proposed a misinformation law with penal provisions, which faced pushback for potential misuse. Against that backdrop, opposition leaders and digital rights activists fear the AI tool could be used to shape political narratives or silence critics, even if officially framed as a public-order measure,” Manoj Kandoth, the founder and director of Urjja.
The Karnataka government, however, insists the tool will only flag content, leaving final decisions and enforcement to human authorities under established legal frameworks. “As states increasingly turn to AI-driven governance tools, Karnataka’s initiative highlights the tension between combating misinformation and protecting democratic freedoms — a balance that will likely define the political debate around SMAS in the months ahead,” added Kandoth.
Karnataka's SMAS might sound like a good solution to a real problem. But without proper safeguards, it could become a tool for controlling citizens and silencing opposition. Building surveillance first and asking questions later is dangerous for democracy and freedom. That is what worries people the most.
