Twitter Verification Backlash: Blue Tick Controversy
Introduction
Twitter is a popular social media plate form with millions of users all around the world. Twitter’s blue tick system, which verifies the identity of high-profile accounts, has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. The platform must face backlash from its users and brands who have accused it of basis, inaccuracy, and inconsistency in its verification process. This blog post will explore the questions raised on the verification process and its impact on users and big brands.
What is Twitter’s blue trick System?
The blue tick system was introduced in 2009 to help users identify the authenticity of well-known public figures, Politicians, celebrities, sportspeople, and big brands. The Twitter blue Tick system verifies the identity of high-profile accounts to display a blue badge next to your username.
According to a survey, roughly there are 294,000 verified Twitter Accounts which means they have a blue tick badge with them and have also paid the subscription for the service, which is nearly $7.99 monthly, so think about those subscribers who have paid the amount and have also lost their blue badge won’t they feel cheated?
The Controversy
Despite its initial aim, the blue tick system has received much criticism from consumers and brands. Twitter’s irregular and non-transparent verification procedure has sparked accusations of prejudice and inaccuracy. Many Twitter users have complained that the network’s verification process is random and favours account with huge followings or celebrity status. In contrast, others have criticised the platform for certifying accounts that promote harmful or controversial content.
Furthermore, the verification mechanism has generated user confusion, as many need to understand the significance of the blue tick badge. Some users have concluded that the blue tick symbol represents a Twitter endorsement or that the account is trustworthy. This confusion has resulted in users following and engaging with verified accounts that promote misleading or inaccurate data, undermining the platform’s credibility.
How did the Blue Tick Row start in India?
On 21 May 2021, when the government asked Twitter to remove the blue badge from several profiles of high-profile Indian politicians, including the Indian National Congress Party Vice-President Mr Rahul Ghandhi.
The blue badge gives the users an authenticated identity. Many celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, popularly known as Big B, Vir Das, Prakash Raj, Virat Kohli, and Rohit Sharma, have lost their blue tick despite being verified handles.
What is the Twitter policy on blue tick?
To Twitter’s policy, blue verification badges may be removed from accounts if the account holder violates the company’s verification policy or terms of service. In such circumstances, Twitter typically notifies the account holder of the removal of the verification badge and the reason for the removal. In the instance of the “Twitter blue badge row” in India, however, it appears that Twitter did not notify the impacted politicians or their representatives before revoking their verification badges. Twitter’s lack of communication has exacerbated the controversy around the episode, with some critics accusing the company of acting arbitrarily and not following due process.
Is there a solution?
The “Twitter blue badge row” has no simple answer since it involves a complex convergence of concerns about free expression, social media policies, and government laws. However, here are some alternatives:
- Establish clear guidelines: Twitter should develop and constantly implement clear guidelines and policies for the verification process. All users, including politicians and government officials, would benefit from greater transparency and clarity.
- Increase transparency: Twitter’s decision-making process for deleting or restoring verification badges should be more open. This could include providing explicit reasons for badge removal, notifying impacted users promptly, and offering an appeals mechanism for those who believe their credentials were removed unfairly.
- Engage in constructive dialogue: Twitter should engage in constructive dialogue with government authorities and other stakeholders to address concerns about the platform’s content moderation procedures. This could contribute to a more collaborative approach to managing online content, leading to more effective and accepted policies.
- Follow local rules and regulations: Twitter should collaborate with the Indian government to ensure it conforms to local laws and regulations while maintaining freedom of expression. This could involve adopting more precise standards for handling requests for material removal or other actions from governments and other organisations.
Conclusion
To sum up, the “Twitter blue tick row” in India has highlighted the complex challenges that Social media faces daily in handling the conflicting interests of free expression, government rules, and their own content moderation procedures. While Twitter’s decision to withdraw the blue verification badges of several prominent Indian politicians garnered anger from the government and some public members, it also raised questions about the transparency and uniformity of Twitter’s verification procedure. In order to deal with this issue, Twitter must establish clear verification procedures and norms, promote transparency in its decision-making process, participate in constructive communication with stakeholders, and adhere to local laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Indian government should collaborate with social media platforms to create more effective and acceptable laws that balance the necessity for free expression and the protection of citizens’ rights. The “Twitter blue tick row” is just one example of the complex challenges that social media platforms face in managing online content, and it emphasises the need for greater collaboration among platforms, governments, and civil society organisations to develop effective solutions that protect both free expression and citizens’ rights.
Related Blogs
Introduction
The appeal is to be heard by the TDSAT (telecommunication dispute settlement & appellate tribunal) regarding several changes under Digital personal data protection. The Changes should be a removal of the deemed consent, a change in appellate mechanism, No change in delegation legislation, and under data breach. And there are some following other changes in the bill, and the digital personal data protection bill 2023 will now provide a negative list of countries that cannot transfer the data.
New Version of the DPDP Bill
The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill has a new version. There are three major changes in the 2022 draft of the digital personal data protection bill. The changes are as follows: The new version proposes changes that there shall be no deemed consent under the bill and that the personal data processing should be for limited uses only. By giving the deemed consent, there shall be consent for the processing of data for any purposes. That is why there shall be no deemed consent.
- In the interest of the sovereignty
- The integrity of India and the National Security
- For the issue of subsidies, benefits, services, certificates, licenses, permits, etc
- To comply with any judgment or order under the law
- To protect, assist, or provide service in a medical or health emergency, a disaster situation, or to maintain public order
- In relation to an employee and his/her rights
The 2023 version now includes an appeals mechanism
It states that the Board will have the authority to issue directives for data breach remediation or mitigation, investigate data breaches and complaints, and levy financial penalties. It would be authorised to submit complaints to alternative dispute resolution, accept voluntary undertakings from data fiduciaries, and advise the government to prohibit a data fiduciary’s website, app, or other online presence if the terms of the law were regularly violated. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal will hear any appeals.
The other change is in delegated legislation, as one of the criticisms of the 2022 version bill was that it gave the government extensive rule-making powers. The committee also raised the same concern with the ministry. The committed wants that the provisions that cannot be fully defined within the scope of the bill can be addressed.
The other major change raised in the new version bill is regarding the data breach; there will be no compensation for the data breach. This raises a significant concern for the victims, If the victims suffer a data breach and he approaches the relevant court or authority, he will not be awarded compensation for the loss he has suffered due to the data breach.
Need of changes under DPDP
There is a need for changes in digital personal data protection as we talk about the deemed consent so simply speaking, by ‘deeming’ consent for subsequent uses, your data may be used for purposes other than what it has been provided for and, as there is no provision for to be informed of this through mandatory notice, there may never even come to know about it.
Conclusion
The bill requires changes to meet the need of evolving digital landscape in the digital personal data protection 2022 draft. The removal of deemed consent will ultimately protect the data of the data principal. And the data of the data principal will be used or processed only for the purpose for which the consent is given. The change in the appellate mechanism is also crucial as it meets the requirements of addressing appeals. However, the no compensation for a data breach is derogatory to the interest of the victim who has suffered a data breach.
Introduction
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an advisory on March 1 2024, urging platforms to prevent bias, discrimination, and threats to electoral integrity by using AI, generative AI, LLMs, or other algorithms. The advisory requires that AI models deemed unreliable or under-tested in India must obtain explicit government permission before deployment. While leveraging Artificial Intelligence models, Generative AI, software, or algorithms in their computer resources, Intermediaries and platforms need to ensure that they prevent bias, discrimination, and threats to electoral integrity. As Intermediaries are required to follow due diligence obligations outlined under “Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)Rules, 2021, updated as of 06.04.2023”. This advisory is issued to urge the intermediaries to abide by the IT rules and regulations and compliance therein.
Key Highlights of the Advisories
- Intermediaries and platforms must ensure that users of Artificial Intelligence models/LLM/Generative AI, software, or algorithms do not allow users to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update, or share unlawful content, as per Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules.
- The government emphasises intermediaries and platforms to prevent bias or discrimination in their use of Artificial Intelligence models, LLMs, and Generative AI, software, or algorithms, ensuring they do not threaten the integrity of the electoral process.
- The government requires explicit permission to use deemed under-testing or unreliable AI models, LLMs, or algorithms on the Indian internet. Further, it must be deployed with proper labelling of potential fallibility or unreliability. Further, users can be informed through a consent popup mechanism.
- The advisory specifies that all users should be well informed about the consequences of dealing with unlawful information on platforms, including disabling access, removing non-compliant information, suspension or termination of access or usage rights of the user to their user account and imposing punishment under applicable law. It entails that users are clearly informed, through terms of services and user agreements, about the consequences of engaging with unlawful information on the platform.
- The advisory also indicates measures advocating to combat deepfakes or misinformation. The advisory necessitates identifying synthetically created content across various formats, advising platforms to employ labels, unique identifiers, or metadata to ensure transparency. Furthermore, the advisory mandates the disclosure of software details and tracing the first originator of such synthetically created content.
Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Union Minister of State for IT, specified that
“Advisory is aimed at the Significant platforms, and permission seeking from Meity is only for large platforms and will not apply to startups. Advisory is aimed at untested AI platforms from deploying on the Indian Internet. Process of seeking permission , labelling & consent based disclosure to user about untested platforms is insurance policy to platforms who can otherwise be sued by consumers. Safety & Trust of India's Internet is a shared and common goal for Govt, users and Platforms.”
Conclusion
MeitY's advisory sets the stage for a more regulated Al landscape. The Indian government requires explicit permission for the deployment of under-testing or unreliable Artificial Intelligence models on the Indian Internet. Alongside intermediaries, the advisory also applies to digital platforms that incorporate Al elements. Advisory is aimed at significant platforms and will not apply to startups. This move safeguards users and fosters innovation by promoting responsible AI practices, paving the way for a more secure and inclusive digital environment.
References
- https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/03/04/meity_ai_advisory_1_march.pdf
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/govts-ai-advisory-will-not-apply-to-startups-mos-it-rajeev-chandrasekhar/articleshow/108197797.cms?from=mdr
- https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Advisory%2015March%202024.pdf
Introduction
In the age of social media, the news can spread like wildfire. A recent viral claim contained that police have started a nationwide scheme of free travel service for women at night. It stated that any woman who is alone and cannot find a vehicle to go home between 10 PM and 06 AM can contact the provided numbers and request a free vehicle. The viral message further contained the request to share and forward this information to everyone to get the women to know about the free vehicle service offered by police at night. However, upon fact check the claim was found to be misleading.
Social Impact of Misleading Information
The fact that such misleading information gets viral at a fast speed is because of its ability to impact and influence people through emotional resonance. Especially during a time when women's safety is a topic discussed in media sensationalism due to recently highlighted rape or sexual violence incidents, such fake viral claims often spark widespread public concern, causing emotional resonance to people and they unknowingly share or forward such messages in the spike of emotional and sensational appeal contained in such messages. The emotional nature of these viral texts often overrides scepticism, leading to immediate sharing without verification.
Such nature of viral messages often tends to bring people to protest, raise awareness and create support networks, but in spite of emotional resonance people get targeted by misinformation and become the unintended superspreaders of fake news fueled by emotional and social media-driven reactions. Women’s safety in society is a sensitive topic and when people discover such viral claims to be misleading and fake, it often hurts the sentiments of society leading to significant social impacts, including distrust in social media, unnecessary panic and confusion.
CyberPeace Policy Vertical Advisory for Social Media Users
- Think before Sharing: All netizens must practice caution while sharing anything and double-check its authenticity before sharing/forwarding or reposting it on your social media stories.
- Don't be unintended superspreaders of Misinformation: Misinformation with emotional resonance and widespread sharing by netizens can lead to them becoming "superspreaders of misinformation" and making it viral quickly. Hence you must avoid such unintended consequences by following the best practices of being vigilant and informed by reliable sources.
- Exercise vigilance and scepticism: It is important that netizens exercise vigilance and they build cognitive abilities to recognise the red flags of misleading information. You can do so by following the official communication channels, looking for any discrepancy in the content of susceptible information and double-checking its authenticity before sharing it with anyone.
- Verify the information from official sources: Follow the official communication channels of concerned authorities for any kind of information, circulars, notifications etc. In case of finding any piece of information to be susceptible or misleading, intimate it to the relevant authority and the fact-checking organizations.
- Stay in touch with expert organizations: Cybersecurity experts and civil society organisations possess the unique blend of large-scale impact potential and technical expertise. Netizens can stay updated about recent developments in the tech-policy sphere and learn about internet best practices, and measures to counter misinformation through methods such as prebunking, debunking and more.
Connect with CyberPeace
As an expert organisation, we have the ability to educate and empower huge numbers, along with the skills and policy acumen needed to be able to not just make people aware of the problem but also teach them how to solve it for themselves. At CyberPeace we regularly produce fact-check reports, blogs & advisories, and insights on prebunking & debunking measures and capacity-building programs with the aim of empowering netizens at the heart of our initiatives. CyberPeace has established the largest network of CyberPeace Corps volunteers globally. These volunteers play a crucial role in assisting victims, raising awareness, and promoting proactive measures.
References:
