The Union government has asked Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, to review its content recommendation systems and prevent users from being disproportionately exposed to a single or limited set of narratives. In an advisory, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) also called for stronger checks on misleading, manipulated or out-of-context content that could cause public confusion, incite violence or disturb public order.
The ministry asked Meta to provide adequate context for photographs, videos and other material depicting ongoing public events, particularly when their authenticity, date, location or circumstances are unclear. The advisory comes amid heightened political tensions and protests in Delhi, although it does not identify a specific incident as the reason for its issuance.
While the government has cited concerns about responsible information sharing and public safety, the directive has also raised questions about content moderation, freedom of expression and the possibility of excessive government influence over online narratives.
Algorithmic Amplification Under Scrutiny
The advisory asks Meta to examine how its recommendation and content-ranking systems select and promote material to users. These systems influence what people see in their feeds, including posts, photographs, videos and statements about political developments, public demonstrations and law-and-order situations. The ministry has expressed concern that certain content relating to ongoing public events is being prominently displayed and recommended without sufficient context, potentially contributing to confusion, apprehension and disturbances to public order.
According to a report by The New Indian Express, ministry sources said government agencies had reported that Meta’s platforms were not promoting all narratives equally, with their algorithms appearing to favour one kind of content over others. The advisory calls on the company to ensure that its recommendation systems do not result in “disproportionate exposure of users to a single or limited set of narratives” and to “endeavour to provide appropriate diversity of relevant and credible information”.
The government has also asked Meta to strengthen mechanisms for the rapid identification, review and escalation of content gaining significant reach through its recommendation systems. Particular attention has been sought for old, unrelated or selectively edited visuals presented as current events; unverified claims about emergencies, restrictions or police action; and audio-visual material about law-and-order situations that lacks adequate context. Content that could incite violence or other unlawful activity, as well as potentially misleading material that continues to receive disproportionate algorithmic promotion, has also been flagged.
The advisory further asks Meta to cooperate with law enforcement agencies and other authorised government bodies in accordance with applicable laws and the timelines prescribed under the Information Technology Rules, 2021. The company has been advised to implement the necessary measures with immediate effect and inform the ministry about the action taken.
Free Speech And Public Safety
The advisory was issued amid politically sensitive developments in Delhi, including protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and opposition parties demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. However, the document does not explicitly link its instructions to these demonstrations or identify any particular post, account or incident as the trigger for the directive.
The government has maintained that its concerns relate to the responsible circulation of information, particularly when misleading or decontextualised content can spread rapidly during tense public situations. An old video presented as footage of a current demonstration, for example, could give users an inaccurate impression of events on the ground. Similarly, selectively edited images or unverified claims about police restrictions may contribute to public anxiety or intensify existing tensions.
At the same time, the advisory has drawn criticism from digital rights advocates. Apar Gupta, founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, described the directive as a “continuing censorship directive”, according to The New Indian Express. Gupta argued that the government should withdraw the advisory and that Meta should publicly disclose every content removal and instance of reduced visibility carried out in response to it. He also questioned whether expressions such as content presented “without adequate context” were sufficiently connected to specific provisions of the Information Technology Act or the IT Rules.
These concerns highlight a difficult balance. Platforms have a responsibility to address demonstrably harmful content, but decisions about what is misleading, credible or sufficiently contextualised can also affect legitimate reporting, political criticism and public debate. The advisory asks Meta to diversify the narratives users encounter, but it does not clearly explain how such diversity should be measured or who should determine which sources qualify as credible.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Social media platforms have become essential spaces for people to access news, share experiences, question authority and participate in democratic conversations. Ensuring that these spaces do not amplify misinformation, hatred or calls for violence is a responsibility that technology companies must take seriously. However, efforts to protect public order must not come at the cost of legitimate dissent, independent journalism or citizens’ right to question those in power.
Algorithmic transparency, clear standards for moderation and independent oversight are crucial to ensuring that content decisions are fair and accountable. The government must explain the legal basis for its directions, while Meta should disclose how it responds to them and provide meaningful avenues for users to challenge unfair restrictions.
A healthy democracy depends not on promoting one preferred narrative, but on allowing diverse perspectives to coexist while holding false and harmful claims to account. Can India strike a balance between preventing online harm and protecting freedom of expression without allowing either governments or technology companies to exercise unchecked control over public discourse?
Also Read: Delhi Police Transfers Second Case Against CJP Leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka To Crime Branch
