India Says New IT Fact-Checking Unit Will Not Censor Journalism

A proposed Indian government unit to fact-check news on social media is not about censoring journalism nor will it have any impact on media reportage, a federal minister said on Friday. Reuters reports: Recently amended IT regulation requires online platforms like Meta's Facebook and Twitter to "make reasonable efforts" to not "publish, share or host" any information relating to the government that is "fake, false or misleading." Rajeev Chandrasekhar, India minister of state for IT, said in an online discussion it was "not true" that the government-appointed unit, which press freedom advocates strongly oppose, was aimed at "censoring journalism." The Editors Guild of India last week described the move as draconian and akin to censorship.

And if you believe that....

[c-A-d]

I have a bridge in Andhra Pradesh to sell you.

Re:

[saloomy]

When government learns a new tactic, that’s it. It can always give itself whatever power it wants, and it WILL abuse that power. Most bills these days don’t even do what they say they will do. Remember the Inflation Reduction Act? Check your local prices. But Ukraine got more weapons. India is the same way. There are obvious questions (what constitutes a journalist?), but they really make no difference. The only thing we debate these days is what the government can do to us (gun restrictions or

Re:

[cascadingstylesheet]

We never wanted the FBI to work with Twitter to censor users through government fiat.

Didn't "we"?

A lot of people here did. After all, can't have "misinformation" out there!

Re:

[korgitser]

I can totally believe that. Journalism today, everywhere, including the West, is big big business. And big big business is inseparable from their government connections. So journalism knows to censor itself. As an exercise on the topic, try to remember the last time you heard something on the news that did not agree to the party or government line...

This is unlike social media, where the business is in another country and does not really have a feel for which message is good and which message is bad in the

Re:

[VeryFluffyBunny]

This is essentially what Russia Today (RT) got booted out of western countries for doing. All they did was employ seasoned (& jaded?) western journalists (some of them award-winning), gave them a budget, & told them to write about whatever they wanted about western countries, i.e. their own governments. RT were actually doing what we claim our own news media are supposed to do in the name of maintaining functioning democracies.

Nowadays, our governments call it "treason" &/or harass journalist

Re:

[VeryFluffyBunny]

If you're interested, ChatGPT has scraped & can re-hash some good arguments in favour of a free press, e.g.

"In recent years, there has been growing concern that news agencies have become propaganda machines for their respective governments. This claim is supported by several factors, including the close relationship between government officials and journalists, the suppression of alternative viewpoints, and the selective reporting of news events.

Firstly, many news agencies have close relationships

Re: And if you believe that....

[PPH]

Moreover, when the media is not free to report on events objectively, it can lead to the spread of misinformation and the manipulation of public opinion. This is particularly dangerous when it comes to matters of national security and foreign policy, where the government may have an interest in presenting a certain narrative to the public.

The problem with this is that national security and foreign policy are often based on adversarial gaming theory. You have to hide your strategies from your opponent. That's almost imposible to do with a completely open government. We elect leaders that are generally aligned with our world view and then trust them to play the necessary games. We also have a separation of powers so that oversight by secondary elected officials keep the implementors in line.

Re:And if you believe that....

[quonset]

When was the last time you read or heard a news story from a major news organisation that wasn't a re-hash of official sources,

You mean like that government propaganda about Clarence Thomas not reporting being bribed by a billionaire [cnn.com]?

Or did you mean the government propaganda about how Mormons are now legally allowed to molest children [go.com] in Arizona?

Or did you mean government propaganda in Florida, if a girl or woman is raped and gets pregnant, they have to prove to the government [orlandosentinel.com] they were raped before they're allowed to get an abortion?

Perhaps it was the government propaganda about the married, anti-groomer Republican and former priest who had sexual relations [dallasvoice.com] with an intern.

What you were probably referring to was the government propaganda from the Attorney General of Maryland outlining over 600 cases of child molestation and rape [go.com] by members of the Catholic church in Baltimore.

So yeah, I hear you. Nothing but propaganda.

Re:

[VeryFluffyBunny]

You mean reporting court cases? Yes, those are all stories re-hashed from official sources.

No News Better Than Fake News

[zenlessyank]

Try that for a change.

Modi is a PoS

[Anonymous Coward]

Censor that.

Double censorship

[larryjoe]

A government that punishes the press for publishing real, unfavorable news is engaged in censorship, but a government that does so against "fake," unfavorable news is engaged in double censorship, first for controlling the press and second for censoring the reporting of the original censorship.

Fucking Liars

[lsllll]

Modi. Bibi. Erdogan. You can tell what kind of douchebags they all are, fulfilling their need to rule under the guise of democracy. Sickening.

Re: Fucking Liars

[Vintermann]

Meanwhile, NYT is helping tracking down the guy who leaked the Pentagon docs, and gloating about it. With media like that, who needs dictators?

In other words, it will censor journalism.

[Eunomion]

India is being a really big disappointment. What is even the point of "Hindu nationalism"? Pantheism that doesn't have room for your one?

Re:

[Chris Mattern]

The problem isn't so much worshiping Allah in itself as it is that worshiping Allah requires that you deny all the Hindu gods. "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Christianity has similar requirements (as does Judaism). "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serv

Re:

[Eunomion]

A free society must include the rights of subsets that exclude each other, however delicate the balance. There's a world of difference between accepting people who have unhelpful opinions you don't share and institutionalizing your own as a weapon against them. One of them is a moral high ground, and the other is a slippery slope into apartheid and fratricidal psychosis.

Re:

[Chris Mattern]

I wasn't excusing their behavior, merely explaining it. Actively denying the existence of their god(s) tends produce a negative reaction in most worshipers. That doesn't mean that it is right to act drastically on that reaction.

Re:

[Eunomion]

You do have a point there. What majorities need to recognize is that there are provocateurs within exclusionary subcultures that seek to bring down wrath on their own communities for the sake of further isolating and radicalizing them. Such elements have a de facto alliance with sadists within a majority culture who are happy to burn down a nation's moral authority in exchange for power.

Freedom is an active and dynamic balance by people who choose to take responsibility for their societies, and who kno

Sir Humphrey

[NewYork]

"The first rule of politics: never believe anything until it's been officially denied" - Sir Humphrey

Fyodor Dostoevsky

[NewYork]

Not questioning the misdeeds of Govt is BETRAYAL of the country, not Patriotism;

"Nothing in this world is harder than speaking the TRUTH, nothing easier than flattery" - Fyodor Dostoevsky (b. 1821)

Re:

[Chris Mattern]

"My country, right or wrong."

"My mother, drunk or sober"

And yet ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... most of you want that, here in the US.

You can see how stupid and dangerous it is, when it is done elsewhere. But no, we'll somehow censor correctly.

And in other news:

[Chris Mattern]

Putin reiterated that the Russian army is not "invading" Ukraine, but merely reclaiming Russia's rightful territory.