Meity’s yet another definitional stretch
Why the proposed amendment to the IT rules on synthetically generated information is problematic
Authors
A common refrain in the many commentaries that come out in the wake of draft rules, bills or amendments proposed by Meity in the last few years has been around the definition of key terms. More often than not, these definitions are too broad — they end up giving too much power to certain stakeholders, or make the scope of the legal change quite expansive. It is no surprise then that Meity’s yet another, recently released draft amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 has the following broad definition:
…‘synthetically generated information’ means information which is artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered using a computer resource, in a manner that such information reasonably appears to be authentic or true…
The draft rules, if finalised, would require significant social media platforms to label content that is synthetically generated. That some sort of labelling mechanism is needed is not much contested.
But according to this broad definition, practically everything shared on a platform like Instagram could fall under the remit of ‘synthetically generated content’. Note the part of the definition which talks about ‘modified or altered using a computer resource’. If a creator adds an audio to a seemingly authentic visual, then would it qualify as synthetically generated information? Because it would be a ‘modification’ after all using a’ computer resource’. What about the endless filters? Social media platforms have made it routine for creators to ‘distort’ reality using various tools. Where to draw the line on what is synthetically generated content and what is not?
This question is not trivial for the platforms. Because if the ‘intermediary becomes aware, or it is otherwise established, that the intermediary knowingly permitted, promoted, or failed to act upon such synthetically generated information in contravention of these rules, such intermediary shall be deemed to have failed to exercise due diligence under this sub-rule.’
It is reasonable to expect, not unlike previously Meity proposed legal changes, some pushback from civil society and industry voices on the draft rules which are open for public comments currently.