Is India Fighting an Algorithm-Fuelled “Revolution”? What MeitY’s Directives to Meta and Other Social Media Platforms Mean
India appears to be fighting an algorithm-fuelled “revolution”, according to the article’s framing. Social media feeds of even politically neutral people are allegedly being filled with posts, images and videos of the recent protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and opposition political groups. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has issued a content advisory to Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, amid protests in Delhi against the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The advisory, dated October 10, the day of the CJP’s protest in Delhi, became public through media reports on Sunday (October 18).
What the government is telling social media
Meta has been told to review its content recommendation systems to avoid public confusion and disorder. The government accused the company of prominently displaying content related to law-and-order situations. It said such content is being “recommended” through Meta’s feeds and recommendation systems, often without adequate context or with disproportionate amplification, and that this “may contribute to public confusion, apprehension and disturbance of public order and social tranquillity.”
How misinformation is spreading
During the recent protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, visuals from earlier, unrelated protests were shared as current events. Unverified or misleading claims about emergency declarations, restrictions, police action and other official measures were circulated by unverified handles on Meta’s platforms as well as on X and YouTube. Audio-visual material on law-and-order situations was presented without context. The ministry said such content could incite violence or unlawful activities.
Meta was told to provide adequate context for photos, videos and graphics of ongoing public events, including their authenticity, date, location and circumstances. It was asked to prevent “disproportionate exposure of users to a single or limited set of narratives” and instead offer an appropriate diversity of relevant and credible information. The platform was also asked to identify amplified content that could cause confusion, violence or disorder, to report the measures taken to the ministry, and to cooperate with law enforcement agencies within the timelines laid down in the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021.
An earlier advisory, sent by MeitY to all major social media platforms on October 8, covered the labelling of AI-generated content as synthetic and the prioritisation of content from authorised government agencies. That was two days before the CJP’s October 10 protest at Jantar Mantar, for which Delhi Police had denied permission. While the October 8 advisory dealt with what content can go on all social media, the October 10 advisory went only to Meta and dealt with how its algorithms spread content.
Critics call it censorship; supporters see law enforcement
Digital rights groups such as the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) criticised the Meta-specific advisory as pressure-inducing censorship that could lead to proactive restriction of protest-related reporting without formal legal orders. IFF founding director Apar Gupta told PTI the advisory is not legally binding but amounts to a “continuing censorship directive”. He said MeitY should withdraw it and that Meta should publicly disclose every takedown and downranking carried out under it.
MeitY has said the advisory respects lawful expression and legitimate public discourse. The government and Delhi Police had already pressed social media platforms on deepfakes, misinformation and amplification, through meetings with executives and takedown requests. Ahead of the October 10 protest, Delhi Police’s cybercrime unit issued more than 200 takedown orders through the government’s Sahyog portal, according to a report in The Economic Times.
What triggered the scrutiny of Meta
The specific issue that triggered the scrutiny was the temporary removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s July 23 video addressing students on the exam paper leak protests. The video was briefly taken down from Facebook and Instagram during the June-July protests demanding the resignation of then education minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET-UG paper leak. Pradhan resigned on July 25.
Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, apologised to Union Electronics and IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw on August 5, attributing the brief removal to an error by its automated content filters.
Is a revolution being “recommended” by algorithms?
At the heart of the government’s actions is a sense that social media recommendation algorithms are deliberately amplifying protest-related content, pushing it even to people who do not wish to consume it. Higher engagement leads to heightened emotions, a sense of urgency and more shares, increasing watch time, which in turn fuels online feeds and support for such protests offline.
Algorithms optimise content for engagement, which reaches millions of people. Indian media reports cited social media users who said their Instagram and Facebook feeds were flooded with protest-related reels in June-July, even when they did not follow such accounts. Content from the protest epicentre, Jantar Mantar, reached tens of millions of views or engagements despite emerging from only a few thousand posts or handles. Similar protests in other cities, such as Ranchi in Jharkhand, got far less reach. That is when the government became suspicious and sought data from Meta on whether the spread was algorithmic.
The platform neutrality argument
Social media companies generally respond that content surfacing in feeds is based on what users already engage with. Protest content does well mainly because of its emotional value, which creates feedback loops. Paid content boosting and creator networks that post for “collaboration” payments add to visibility. Misinformation, deepfakes and old, recycled footage add to the mix. Foreign-linked amplification has also been noticed, including alleged Pakistan-origin networks in some cases, which circulate misleading information and recycled or selectively edited videos alongside genuine protest content.
“Cognitive warfare” argument
The article argues that the algorithm is amplifying selective grievances and magnifying discontent, prioritising outrage over solutions. It says this is often exploited by established political parties, which coordinate and co-opt campaigns by genuinely discontented youth from Gen Z and Gen Alpha, with bots mixing with real people alongside external actors. It states this is leading to rapid mobilisation beyond what would have been possible if the protests were organic.
According to the article, algorithms lower the barrier to visibility and can quickly turn local issues viral among Gen Z, a heavy user base for Instagram Reels. Mobile phones are the mobilising devices of today, with algorithms shaping reach and directing narratives, creating a sense of broader or more intense unrest even around localised protests.