<p>The first requirement of a social media service is to be open and public in the real sense, by being transparent and credible in its operations and dealings. This responsibility is especially important when the service is big and has a large and diverse base, catering to millions of users with different views and interests. Twitter is one such service provider which has a large presence in the mind space of people but has sometimes been found wanting in being open. Some recent incidents have highlighted this: Twitter blocked local access to accounts of Punjabi singer Jazzy B and three others in response to a request under the Information Technology (IT) Act. It also sent a communication to cartoonist Manjul informing him that the authorities have flagged his social media account as posting content that violates laws.</p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/business/twitter-appoints-interim-chief-compliance-officer-for-india-to-share-details-with-it-ministry-soon-997804.html" target="_blank">Twitter appoints interim Chief Compliance Officer for India, to share details with IT ministry soon</a></strong></p>.<p>Twitter notifications to its account-holders lack transparency. No information is available in the public domain as to why it initiated action against Jazzy and Manjul. Manjul has done many cartoons on the Modi government's handling of the Covid pandemic. Twitter told the cartoonist, who has a large follower base, that the law enforcement authorities have sought action on his cartoons. It has not disclosed which agency has sought action, nor has it pointed out any particular cartoon that’s been deemed offensive to the authorities. It is believed that the request to Twitter to block Jazzy’s account was made on the charge that it was being used for pro-Khalistan propaganda. Even when the action is sought to be taken under the IT Act or any other law, there is the need for details about which agency has called for action and what the charges are. Former IAS officer Surya Pratap Singh and co-founder of fact-checking platform <em>Alt News </em>Mohammed Zubair have also got notices informing them that law enforcement agencies have sought action against their accounts. But they also have not been told which agencies have asked for it. </p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/twitter-to-bring-new-anti-abuse-security-features-997930.html" target="_blank">Twitter to bring new anti-abuse security features</a></strong></p>.<p>When it sends notice to account-holders, Twitter must make public who has made a complaint. Else, it becomes an infringement on the right of the account-holder. The reasons for action should be made known because they concern not only the account-holder but others who follow him. It is not just a matter between the account-holder and Twitter. A tweet is a public document and so actions related to it should be in the public domain. Twitter’s explanations about it and its clarifications are not very convincing. In the cases of Jazzy and Manjul, Twitter said it was taking action under local laws, without mentioning what the laws are. Twitter users have the right to know who wants the action taken, why and under what law. These cannot be Twitter’s secrets. </p>
<p>The first requirement of a social media service is to be open and public in the real sense, by being transparent and credible in its operations and dealings. This responsibility is especially important when the service is big and has a large and diverse base, catering to millions of users with different views and interests. Twitter is one such service provider which has a large presence in the mind space of people but has sometimes been found wanting in being open. Some recent incidents have highlighted this: Twitter blocked local access to accounts of Punjabi singer Jazzy B and three others in response to a request under the Information Technology (IT) Act. It also sent a communication to cartoonist Manjul informing him that the authorities have flagged his social media account as posting content that violates laws.</p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/business/twitter-appoints-interim-chief-compliance-officer-for-india-to-share-details-with-it-ministry-soon-997804.html" target="_blank">Twitter appoints interim Chief Compliance Officer for India, to share details with IT ministry soon</a></strong></p>.<p>Twitter notifications to its account-holders lack transparency. No information is available in the public domain as to why it initiated action against Jazzy and Manjul. Manjul has done many cartoons on the Modi government's handling of the Covid pandemic. Twitter told the cartoonist, who has a large follower base, that the law enforcement authorities have sought action on his cartoons. It has not disclosed which agency has sought action, nor has it pointed out any particular cartoon that’s been deemed offensive to the authorities. It is believed that the request to Twitter to block Jazzy’s account was made on the charge that it was being used for pro-Khalistan propaganda. Even when the action is sought to be taken under the IT Act or any other law, there is the need for details about which agency has called for action and what the charges are. Former IAS officer Surya Pratap Singh and co-founder of fact-checking platform <em>Alt News </em>Mohammed Zubair have also got notices informing them that law enforcement agencies have sought action against their accounts. But they also have not been told which agencies have asked for it. </p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/twitter-to-bring-new-anti-abuse-security-features-997930.html" target="_blank">Twitter to bring new anti-abuse security features</a></strong></p>.<p>When it sends notice to account-holders, Twitter must make public who has made a complaint. Else, it becomes an infringement on the right of the account-holder. The reasons for action should be made known because they concern not only the account-holder but others who follow him. It is not just a matter between the account-holder and Twitter. A tweet is a public document and so actions related to it should be in the public domain. Twitter’s explanations about it and its clarifications are not very convincing. In the cases of Jazzy and Manjul, Twitter said it was taking action under local laws, without mentioning what the laws are. Twitter users have the right to know who wants the action taken, why and under what law. These cannot be Twitter’s secrets. </p>
