Last week’s $18-billion settlement by tech giant Meta in a US lawsuit alleging that its platforms—Facebook and Instagram—had harmed children was a seminal moment. In just three decades, social media has evolved from bringing friends and family together to democratising access to information, to ubiquitous worldwide adoption, and now to a source of serious concerns. Those concerns fall broadly into two silos: the deleterious effects on minors, and misuse for propaganda and political interference.
By now, there is enough evidence that the algorithms determining social media feeds are not merely addictive, but deliberately designed to be so. Of course, this affects adults, too, as seriously as any other addiction, but it is particularly harmful to minors. One of many examples is a Stanford University study demonstrating that a staggering 80 per cent of 11- to 14-year-olds could not distinguish real news from sponsored content. This has led to not just the de-socialisation of minors, but their obsession with such things as cosmetic surgery.
It is equally clear that unfettered social media has violated long-established societal norms and legal principles regarding propaganda, fake news and political interference. This poses a serious threat to democracy. Back in 2019, the US had already penalised Facebook $5 billion over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which millions of users’ data was used illegally for political ends. That scandal touched India as well, with the Congress implicated as a client. But Facebook and Instagram are hardly the only offenders: TikTok, X and others have paid similarly large penalties for misusing their enormous troves of data to target children or pursue political objectives.
A fundamental loophole in the law dates back to the industry’s infancy. The Communications Decency Act (1996) of the US and India’s own IT Act (2000) grant these platforms “safe harbour” status, shielding them from liability for third-party content. Thus, while newspapers, TV channels, or people can be sued for defamation—and many have suffered adverse judgments and heavy fines—social media platforms are exempted.
There was a logic to this. Unlike editors, who pre-curate what they publish, the sheer volume and immediacy of social media content precludes prior control. However, that exemption presumes that platforms are neutral. In reality, there are innumerable instances of algorithms amplifying some viewpoints while suppressing others. Whether platforms do this with ulterior motives, or simply engineer their algorithms to induce addiction, sensationalism and outrage, is ultimately immaterial.
There were credible allegations last month that certain platforms deliberately amplified the protests in Delhi, force-feeding that content even to accounts that had expressed interest only in unrelated topics like Bollywood or cricket. Such conduct surely justifies fresh scrutiny of platform neutrality and the safe-harbour principle. Several countries have experienced covert foreign election interference through social media, involving AI deepfakes and what is being called “spamouflage”. Recent major news events in India have seen a proliferation of Pakistan-based fake accounts leading the narrative.
In the US, parents are both celebrating the Facebook settlement and complaining that its new restrictions for children are inadequate. Also, Meta is withholding part of its penalty until rivals TikTok and YouTube adopt similar steps.
Nearly 20 countries have already enacted legislation to restrict minors’ access, prohibit electoral interference, and impose penalties and imprisonment. The focus is now shifting to India. The only other country with a larger user base, China, is not comparable: most global platforms are banned there, it is not a democracy, and it operates a vast information control system. How the rules evolve in India will help shape the next generation of the internet and social media globally.
Baijayant ‘Jay’ Panda is National Vice President of the BJP and is an MP in the Lok Sabha.
