Facebook Says It Inadvertently Restricted A Hashtag. Now It Needs To Tell Us Exactly How And Why

This article originally appeared on Medianama. An excerpt is reproduced here:

An explanation

The presence of a political context surrounding these cases also raises the question of how Facebook is responding to the possible weaponisation of its community reporting. We know from Facebook’s August 2020 CIB report that it took against a network engaged in mass reporting. What principles does it use to define thresholds for action? How is such coordinated activity that falls below its self-defined threshold of Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour handled? Knowledge about the specifics of thresholds become essential when they make the difference between publicly disclosed and internal actions, as the Sophie Zhang – Guardian series demonstrated in the Indian context.Facebook — this applies to other networks too, but Facebook is by far the largest in India — needs to put forward more meaningful explanations in such cases. Ones that amount to more than ‘Oops!’ or ‘Look! We fixed it!’. There are, after all, no secret blocking rules stopping it from explaining its own mistakes. These explanations don’t have to be immediate. Issues can be complex, requiring detailed analysis. Set a definite timeline, and deliver. No doubt, this already happens for internal purposes. And then, actually show progress. Reduce the trust deficit, don’t feed it.This does raise concerns of being drawn into distracted by narrow content-specific conversations or being distracted by ‘transparency theater’, thereby missing the forest for the trees. These are legitimate risks and need to be navigated carefully. The micro-level focus can be about specific types of content or actions on a particular platform. At the macro-level, it is about impact on public discourse and society. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive and what we learn from one level should inform the others, in pursuit of greater accountability. To read more visit: Facebook says it inadvertently restricted a hashtag. Now it needs to tell us exactly how and why | MediaNama

The wrong way to regulate disinformation

This article originally appeared in Deccan Herald.

When the Kerala Governor signed a controversial Ordinance, now withdrawn, proposing amendments to the Kerala Police Act, there was understandably a significant amount of criticism and ire directed at the state government for a provision that warranted a three-year jail term for intentionally and falsely defaming a person or a group of people. After the backlash, the state’s Chief Minister announced his intention not to implement the fresh amendment.

How not to regulate information disorderFor anyone tracking the information ecosystem and how different levels of state administration are responding to information disorder (misinformation, disinformation and malinformation) this attempted overreach is not surprising. In Kerala alone, over the last few months, we have witnessed accusations from the opposition of ‘Trump-ian’ behaviour on the part of the state administration to decry any unflattering information as ‘fake news’. Even in September, the Chief Minister had to assure people that measures to curb information disorder will not affect media freedom, after pushback against decisions to expand fact-checking initiatives beyond Covid-19 related news. In October, it was reported that over 200 cases were filed for ‘fake news’ in the preceding five months.Of course, this is by no means limited to one state, or a particular part of the political spectrum. Across the country, there have been measures such as banning social media news platforms, notifications/warnings to WhatsApp admins, a PIL seeking Aadhaar linking to social media accounts, as well as recommendations to the Union Home Minister for ‘real-time social media monitoring’. Arrests/FIRs against journalists and private citizens for ‘fake news’ and ‘rumour-mongering’ have taken place in several states.How to regulate information disorder?Before proceeding to ‘the how’, it is important to consider two fundamental questions when it comes to the topic of regulating disinformation. First, should we? Four or five years ago, many people would have said no. Yet, today, many people will probably say yes. What will we say in the four or five years from now? We don’t know. ...For the complete article, go here.

Flawed regulation can undermine the digital payment ecosystem

Anupam Manur writes in Hindustan Times on why the limits placed on Unified Payments Interface (UPI) transactions for third-party apps by NPCI is flawed.Systemic risks are automatically lower when consumers, merchants, and third-party app developers are all multi-homing, meaning they simultaneously use more than one app for the same purpose. The UPI ecosystem is radically substitutable. In the case of failure, consumers and merchants can switch from one app to another without the slightest friction. Though two apps, PhonePe and GPay, dominate the UPI market (with roughly 80% of UPI transactions), consumers are not without choice — there are at least 52 UPI service providers, 189 issuers and around 21 third-party apps. Third-party app developers also can and do have tie-ups with multiple banks simultaneously, such that the YES bank-PhonePe fiasco will not be repeated.Beyond being unnecessary, the rule is also improper, incomplete, and inconsistent. If the aim is to mitigate the systemic risk of failure of one big market player, the rule change should apply to all apps providing UPI services, and not just third-party apps. Is the systemic risk different when the app of a scheduled commercial bank fails as against a third-party app?The entire article can be accessed here

The Puzzling Ban of E-Cigarettes in India

The Indian government’s own disastrous experience with bans of various substances and services in the past should categorically advise it against such a move in the future. Yet, it is planning to go down the same route again with the case of “e-cigarettes” also known as Electronic Nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). A ban on ENDS, however well-intentioned, will put several former smokers at a greater risk of limiting their access to no-tar alternatives and will end up defeating the larger public health objectives.

In a landmark 200-page report titled “Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction”, the Royal College of Physicians in the UK concludes that e-cigarettes are not a gateway to smoking, nor do they result in the normalisation of smoking. They find that the available evidence indicates that “e-cigarettes are being used almost exclusively as safer alternatives to smoked tobacco, by confirmed smokers who are trying to reduce harm to themselves or others from smoking or to quit smoking completely”. Importantly, they further categorically find that the long-term harm caused by e-cigarettes is less than 5 percent compared to other tobacco products.

By allowing ENDS to operate in India legally, the government and regulatory bodies can have a lot more control over the product. This includes levying appropriate taxes, issuing public use guidelines, providing information about the product, enforcing a minimum age for sales, and individual product restrictions surrounding flavour choices and nicotine concentration in tobacco or e-cigarette products. In fact, regulators could go further to ensure product standardisation, labelling requirements to indicate the level of nicotine (something which is not in practice today for normal cigarettes), and technological developments in the field to further reduce the harm caused by the products.

Read the full article here