This is the internet age. Internet made it possible to have social media and communication technologies. At the same time, along with technologies, there were issues to regulate these technologies. These technologies must serve the society. While regulating these, we have to take care that the baby is not thrown out with the bath water. Governments can set rules, but they should not suffocate the openness and freedom of expression that people value.
Mainly, in the world, the three regulatory pillars are the US, the EU and India. The European Union took the lead by launching GDPR. India launched the Digital India Act, the Telecom Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (DPDP), 2022.
In the world, China operates internet that is closed to the rest of the world. In non-Chinese model, we have regulation from the US, the EU and India. The aim is to keep the openness of internet for future generations.
The tech companies must be forward-looking. Facebook has invested a lot in metaverse.
The data flows across the Atlantic, from the EU to the US. Data cannot be locked up. It is as good as air. It spreads. The whole issue of localisation of data is to be seen in context. Data is called oil, as it is valuable. However, there is a difference. Once you use the oil, you burn it, and it is gone. Data sovereignty debate too is going on in parts of Europe. The data flows affect the investment scene too between the US and Europe.
Facebook provided ‘like’ button in 2009. Since then, 13 years have elapsed. Still there are voices to have Facebook regulated. A digital eco-system must move data effortlessly from one service to the other — it is called data portability. Of course, it threatens privacy. It is a trade-off between competition and privacy.
In augmented reality platform such as metaverse, rule makers, decide the rules about data portability, data use, eye-tracking, integrity, safety, child security, and age-gating. Privacy experts should ensure that users have control to switch these features on and off. It is not necessary to monitor involuntary and autonomous eye movements. It is not necessary to ferret out data about intuitive reflexes.
Some issues are much hyped, e.g. hate speech accounts form 0.02 per cent of content. It could be never be zero, but we could improve upon the current situation. Through advances in AI, its percentage has been cut by over 50 per cent.
The Governments insist on tracing the origin of mischievous messages on WhatsApp. However, the media says it breaks the encryption. This tracebility issue is sub judice. The trace back is not consistent with the security and privacy of communication.
The new Data Protection Bill mandates user consent for using data for purposes other than for which it was collected. Users must consent to the way their data is used. However, if we keep asking consent every now and then, it is meaningless. The best way is to seek consent that is comprehensible to users.
Social media must be open and consistent. They employ independent fact checkers in different countries.
Social media use algorithms to assess the profile of their users. Most of these algorithms suppress misinformation, hate speech and border line content. Facebook took the lead and offered database to 11 universities to assess the behaviour of people at the time of 2020 presidential election. There could be greater audit of data and higher content moderation.
Children are protected and parents have been provided controls to regulate their behaviour.