<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/">




    



<channel rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/search_rss">
  <title>Centre for Internet and Society</title>
  <link>https://cis-india.org</link>
  
  <description>
    
            These are the search results for the query, showing results 321 to 335.
        
  </description>
  
  
  
  
  <image rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/logo.png"/>

  <items>
    <rdf:Seq>
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/openness/submitted-comments-on-the-government-open-data-use-license-india"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-cooperation"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-co-operation.pdf"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/telecom/files/submission-to-trai-november-6-2017"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-the-committee-of-experts-on-a-data-protection-framework-for-india"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-on-indias-draft-comments-on-proposed-changes-to-itus-itrs"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-on-proposals-for-future-itrs-and-related-processes"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/nishant/iacs%20article.pdf"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/news/open-glam-working-group-members-subhashish-panigrahi"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/subbiah-arunachalam"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_studying-the-internet-discourse-in-india-through-the-prism-of-human-rights"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/raw/cis-and-apu-studying-platform-work-in-mumbai-and-new-delhi"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-selected-abstracts"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-2016-selected-abstracts"/>
        
    </rdf:Seq>
  </items>

</channel>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/openness/submitted-comments-on-the-government-open-data-use-license-india">
    <title>Submitted Comments on the 'Government Open Data Use License - India'</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/openness/submitted-comments-on-the-government-open-data-use-license-india</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;The public consultation process of the draft open data license to be used by Government of India has ended yesterday. Here we share the text of the submission by CIS. It was drafted by Anubha Sinha, Pranesh Prakash, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay.&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The following comments on the 'Government Open Data Use License - India' was drafted by Anubha Sinha, Pranesh Prakash, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay, and submitted through the &lt;a href="https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/public-consultation-government-open-data-use-license-india/"&gt;MyGov portal&lt;/a&gt; on July 25, 2016. The original submission can be found &lt;a href="https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/mygov_146946521043358971.pdfh"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;I. Preliminary&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (“&lt;strong&gt;CIS&lt;/strong&gt;”) &lt;strong&gt;[1]&lt;/strong&gt; on the draft Government Open Data Use License - India (“&lt;strong&gt;the draft licence&lt;/strong&gt;”) &lt;strong&gt;[2]&lt;/strong&gt; by the Department of Legal Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;This submission is based on the draft licence released on the MyGov portal on June 27, 2016 &lt;strong&gt;[3]&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;CIS commends the Department of Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders prior to finalising its open data licence. CIS is thankful for the opportunity to have been a part of the discussion during the framing of the licence; and to provide this submission, in furtherance of the feedback process continuing from the draft licence.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;II. Overview&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;ol start="4"&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-governmental organisation engaged in research and policy work in the areas of, inter alia, access to knowledge and openness. This clause-by-clause submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles and are limited to those clauses that most directly have an impact on them.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;III. Comments and Recommendations&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;ol start="5"&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Name of the Licence:&lt;/strong&gt; CIS recommends naming the licence “Open Data Licence - India” to reflect the nomenclature already established for similar licences in other nations like the UK and Canada. More importantly, the inclusion of the word ‘use’ in the original name “Government Open Data Use License” is misleading, since the licence permits use, sharing, modification and redistribution of open data.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Change Language on Permissible Use of Data:&lt;/strong&gt; The draft licence uses the terms “Access, use, adapt, and redistribute,” which are used in UNESCO’s definition of open educational resources, whereas, under the Indian Copyright Act &lt;strong&gt;[4]&lt;/strong&gt;, it should cover “reproduction, issuing of copies,” etc. To resolve this difference, we suggest the following language be used: “Subject to the provisions of section 7, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to all rights covered by copyright and allied rights, for the duration of existence of such copyright and allied rights over the data or information.”&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Add Section on the Scope of Applicability of the Licence:&lt;/strong&gt; It will be useful to inform the user of the licence on its applicability. The section may be drafted as: “This licence is meant for public use, and especially by all Ministries, Departments, Organizations, Agencies, and autonomous bodies of Government of India, when publicly disclosing, either proactively or reactively, data and information created, generated, collected, and managed using public funds provided by Government of India directly or through authorized agencies.”&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Add Sub-Clause Specifying that the Licence is Agnostic of Mode of Access:&lt;/strong&gt; As part of the section 4 of the draft licence, titled ‘Terms and Conditions of Use of Data,’ a sub-clause should be added that specifies that users may enjoy all the freedom granted under this licence irrespective of their preferred mode of access of the data concerned, say manually downloaded from the website, automatically accessed via an API, collected from a third party involved in re-sharing of this data, accessed in physical/printed form, etc.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Add Sub-Clause on Non-Repudiability and Integrity of the Published Data:&lt;/strong&gt; To complement the sub-clause 6.e. that notes that data published under this licence should be published permanently and with appropriate versioning (in case of the published data being updated and/or modified), another sub-clause should be added that states that non-repudiability and integrity of published data must be ensured through application of real/digital signature, as applicable, and checksum, as applicable. This is to ensure that an user who has obtained the data, either in physical or digital form, can effectively identify and verify the the agency that has published the data, and if any parts of the data have been lost/modified in the process of distribution and/or transmission (through technological corruption of data, or otherwise).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Combine Section 6 on Exemptions and Section 7 on Termination:&lt;/strong&gt; Given that the licence cannot reasonably proscribe access to data that has already been published online, it is suggested that it would be better to simply terminate the application of the licence to that data or information that ought not to have been published for grounds provided under section 8 of the RTI Act, or have been inadvertently published. It should also be noted that section 8 of the RTI Act cannot be “violated” (as stated in Section 6.g. of the draft licence), since it only provides permission for the public authority to withhold information, and does not impose an obligation on them (or anyone else) to do so. The combined clause can read: “Upon determination by the data provider that specific data or information should not have been publicly disclosed for the grounds provided under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the data provider may terminate the applicability of the licence for that data or information, and this termination will have the effect of revocation of all rights provided under Section 3 of this licence.”&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;It will be our pleasure to discuss these submissions with the Department of Legal Affairs in greater detail, supplement these with further submissions if necessary, and offer any other assistance towards the efforts at developing a national open data licence.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[1]&lt;/strong&gt; See: &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/"&gt;http://cis-india.org/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[2]&lt;/strong&gt; See: &lt;a href="https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/mygov_1466767582190667.pdf"&gt;https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/mygov_1466767582190667.pdf&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[3]&lt;/strong&gt; See: &lt;a href="https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/public-consultation-government-open-data-use-license-india/"&gt;https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/public-consultation-government-open-data-use-license-india/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[4]&lt;/strong&gt; See: &lt;a href="http://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf"&gt;http://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/submitted-comments-on-the-government-open-data-use-license-india'&gt;https://cis-india.org/openness/submitted-comments-on-the-government-open-data-use-license-india&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>sinha</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Open Government Data</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Open License</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Open Data</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>NDSAP</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Featured</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Openness</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Homepage</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2016-07-26T09:23:48Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-cooperation">
    <title>Submission to UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-cooperation</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-cooperation'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-cooperation&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2019-02-19T00:55:04Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>File</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-co-operation.pdf">
    <title>Submission to UN High Level Panel on Digital Co-operation.pdf</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-co-operation.pdf</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-co-operation.pdf'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-co-operation.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>karan</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2019-02-07T07:18:44Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>File</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/telecom/files/submission-to-trai-november-6-2017">
    <title>Submission to TRAI (November 6, 2017)</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/telecom/files/submission-to-trai-november-6-2017</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/files/submission-to-trai-november-6-2017'&gt;https://cis-india.org/telecom/files/submission-to-trai-november-6-2017&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2017-11-08T01:08:37Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>File</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks">
    <title>Submission to the Facebook Oversight Board: Policy on Cross-checks</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;The Centre for Internet &amp; Society (CIS) submitted public comments to the Facebook Oversight Board on a policy consultation.&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;h2&gt;Whether a cross-check system is needed?&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Recommendation for the Board&lt;/strong&gt;: The Board should investigate the cross-check system as part of Meta’s larger problems with algorithmically amplified speech, and how such speech gets moderated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Explanation&lt;/strong&gt;: The issues surrounding Meta’s cross-check system are not an isolated phenomena, but rather a reflection of the problems of algorithmically amplified speech, as well the lack of transparency in the company’s content moderation processes at large. At the outset, it must be stated that the majority of information on the cross-check system only became available after the media &lt;a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353?mod=article_inline"&gt;reports&lt;/a&gt; published by the Wall Street Journal. While these reports have been extensive in documenting various aspects of the system, there is no guarantee that the disclosures obtained by them provides the complete picture regarding the system. Further, given that Meta has been found to purposely mislead the Board and the public on how the cross-check system operates, it is worth investigating the incentives that necessitate the cross-check system in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Meta claims that the cross-check system works as a check for false positives: they “employ additional reviews for high-visibility content that may violate our policies.” Essentially they want to make sure that content that stays up on the platform and reaches a large audience, is following their content guidelines. However, previous disclosures have &lt;a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-hate-speech-india-politics-muslim-hindu-modi-zuckerberg-11597423346"&gt;proven&lt;/a&gt; policy executives have prioritized the company’s ‘business interests’ over removing content that violates their policies; and have &lt;a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang"&gt;waited to act on known problematic content&lt;/a&gt; until significant external pressure was built up, including in India. In this context, the cross-check system seems less like a measure designed to protect users who might be exposed to problematic content, and more as a measure for managing public perception of the company.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Thus the Board should investigate both how content gains an audience on the platform, and how it gets moderated. Previous &lt;a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang"&gt;whistleblower disclosures&lt;/a&gt; have shown that the mechanics of algorithmically amplified speech, which prioritizes &lt;a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/11/1020600/facebook-responsible-ai-misinformation/"&gt;engagement and growth over safety&lt;/a&gt;, are easily taken advantage of by bad actors to promote their viewpoints through artificially induced virality. The cross-check system and other measures of content moderation at scale would not be needed if it was harder to spread problematic content on the platform in the first place. Instead of focusing only on one specific system, the Board needs to urge Meta to re-evaluate the incentives that drive content sharing on the platform and come up with ways that make the platform safer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Meta’s Obligations under Human Rights Law&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Recommendation for the Board: &lt;/strong&gt;The Board must consider the cross-check system to be violative of Meta’s obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Additionally, the cross-check ranker must be incorporated with Meta’s commitments towards human rights, as outlined in its Corporate Human Rights Policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Explanation: Meta’s content moderation, and by extension, its cross-check system, is bound by both international human rights law as well as the Board’s past decisions. At the outset, The system fails the three-pronged test of legality, legitimacy and necessity and proportionality, as delineated under Article 19(3) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Firstly, this system has been “&lt;a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353?mod=article_inline"&gt;scattered throughout the company, without clear governance or ownership&lt;/a&gt;”, which violates the legality principle, since there is no clear guidance on what sort of speech, or which classes of users, would deserve the treatment of this system. Secondly, there is no understanding about the legitimacy of aims with which this system had been set up in the first place, beyond Meta’s own assertions, which have been &lt;a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/news/215139350722703-oversight-board-demands-more-transparency-from-facebook/"&gt;countered&lt;/a&gt; by evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, the necessity and proportionality of the restriction has to be &lt;a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ"&gt;read along&lt;/a&gt; with the &lt;a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/freedomopinion/articles19-20/pages/index.aspx"&gt;Rabat Plan of Action&lt;/a&gt;, which requires that for a statement to become a criminal offense, a six-pronged test of threshold is to be applied: a) the social and political context, b) the speaker’s position or status in the society, c) intent to incite the audience against a target group, d) content and form of the speech, e) extent of its dissemination and f) likelihood of harm. As news reports have indicated, Meta has been utilizing the cross-check system to privilege speech from influential users, and in the process, have shielded inflammatory, inciting speech that would have otherwise qualified the Rabat threshold. As such, the third requirement is not fulfilled either.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Additionally, Meta’s own &lt;a href="https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Facebooks-Corporate-Human-Rights-Policy.pdf"&gt;Corporate Human Rights Policy&lt;/a&gt; commits to respecting human rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Therefore, the cross-check ranker must incorporate these existing commitments to human rights, including:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li style="text-align: justify;"&gt;The right to freedom of expression:, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression report &lt;a href="https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/38/35"&gt;A/HRC/38/35&lt;/a&gt; (2018); &lt;a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25729&amp;amp;LangID=E"&gt;Joint Statement of international freedom of expression monitors on COVID-19 (March, 2020)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression addresses the regulation of user-generated online content.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Joint Statement issued regarding Governmental promotion and protection of access to and free flow of information during the pandemic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The right to non-discrimination: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (&lt;a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx"&gt;ICERD&lt;/a&gt;), Articles 1 and 4.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Article 1 of the ICERD defines racial discrimination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Article 4 of the ICERD condemns propaganda and organisations that attempt to justify discrimination or are based on the idea of racial supremacism.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Participation in public affairs and the right to vote: ICCPR Article 25.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The right to remedy: General Comment No. 31, Human Rights Committee (2004) (&lt;a href="https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f21%2fRev.1%2fAdd.13&amp;amp;Lang=en"&gt;General Comment 31&lt;/a&gt;); UNGPs, Principle 22.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The General Comment discusses the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on State Parties to the Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Guiding Principle 22 states that where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Meta’s obligations to avoid political bias and false positives in its cross-check system&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Recommendation for the Board: &lt;/strong&gt;The Board must urge Meta to adopt and implement the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability to ensure that it is open about risks to user rights when there is involvement from the State in content moderation. Additionally, the Board must ask Meta to undertake a diversity and human rights audit of its existing policy teams, and commit to regular cultural training for its staff. Finally, the Board must investigate the potential conflicts of interest that arise when Meta’s policy team has any sort of nexus with political parties, and how that might impact content moderation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Explanation: For the cross-check system to be free from biases, it is important for Meta to come clear to the Board regarding the rationale, standards and processes of the cross check review, and report on the relative error rates of determinations made through cross check compared with ordinary enforcement procedures. It also needs to disclose to the Board in which particular situations it uses the system and in which it does not. Principle 4 under the Foundational Principles of the &lt;a href="https://santaclaraprinciples.org/"&gt;Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation&lt;/a&gt; encourage companies to realize the risk to user rights when there is involvement from the State in processes of content moderation and asks companies to makes users aware that: a) a state actor has requested/participated in an action on their content/account, and b) the company believes that the action was needed as per the relevant law. Users should be allowed access to any rules or policies, formal or informal work relationships that the company holds with state actors in terms of content regulation, the process of flagging accounts/content and state requests to action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;The Board must consider that erroneous lack of action (false positives) might not always be a system's flaw, but a larger, structural issue regarding how policy teams at Meta functions. As previous disclosures have &lt;a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-hate-speech-india-politics-muslim-hindu-modi-zuckerberg-11597423346"&gt;proven&lt;/a&gt;, the contours of what sort of violating content gets to stay up on the platform has been ideologically and politically coloured, as policy executives have prioritized the company’s ‘business interests’ over social harmony. In such light, it is not sufficient to simply propose better transparency and accountability measures for Meta to adopt within its content moderation processes to avoid political bias. Rather, the Board’s recommendations must focus on the structural aspect of the human moderator and policy team that is behind these processes. The Board must ask Meta to a) urgently undertake a diversity and human rights audit of its existing team and its hiring processes, b) commit to regular training to ensure that their policy staffs are culturally literate in the socio-political regions they work in. Further, the Board must seriously investigate the potential &lt;a href="https://time.com/5883993/india-facebook-hate-speech-bjp/"&gt;conflicts of interest&lt;/a&gt; that happen when regional policy teams of Meta, with nexus to political parties, are also tasked with regulating content from representatives of these parties, and how that impacts the moderation processes at large.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Finally, in case decision &lt;a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ"&gt;2021-001-FB-FBR&lt;/a&gt;, the Board made a number of recommendations to Meta which must be implemented in the current situation, including: a) considering the political context while looking at potential risks, b) employment of specialized staff in content moderation while evaluating political speech from influential users, c) familiarity with the political and linguistic context&amp;nbsp; d) absence of any interference and undue influence, e) public explanation regarding the rules Meta uses when imposing sanctions against influential users and f) the sanctions being time-bound.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Transparency of the cross-check system&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Recommendation for the Board: &lt;/strong&gt;The Board must urge Meta to adopt and implement the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability to increase the transparency of its cross-check system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Explanation: &lt;/strong&gt;There are ways in which Meta can increase the transparency of not only the cross-check system, but the content moderation process in general. The following recommendations draw from &lt;a href="https://santaclaraprinciples.org/"&gt;The Santa Clara Principles&lt;/a&gt; and the Board’s own previous decisions:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Considering Principle 2 of the Santa Clara Principles: Understandable Rules and Policies, Meta should ensure that the policies and rules governing moderation of content and user behaviors on Facebook are&lt;strong&gt; clear, easily understandable, and available in the languages&lt;/strong&gt; in which the user operates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Drawing from Principle 5 on Integrity and Explainability and from the Board’s recommendations in case decision &lt;a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ"&gt;2021-001-FB-FBR&lt;/a&gt; which advises Meta to“&lt;em&gt;Provide users with accessible information on how many violations, strikes and penalties have been assessed against them, and the consequences that will follow future violations&lt;/em&gt;”, Meta should be able to &lt;strong&gt;explain the content moderation decisions to users in all cases&lt;/strong&gt;: when under review, when the decision has been made to leave the content up, or take it down. We recommend that Meta keeps a publicly accessible running tally of the number of moderation decisions made on a piece of content till date with their explanations. This would allow third parties (like journalists, activists, researchers and the OSB) to keep Facebook accountable when it does not follow its own policies, as has previously been the case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;In the same case decision, the Board has also previously recommended that Meta “&lt;em&gt;Produce more information to help users understand and evaluate the process and criteria for applying the newsworthiness allowance, including how it applies to influential accounts. The company should also clearly explain the rationale, standards and processes of the cross-check review, and report on the relative error rates of determinations made through cross-checking compared with ordinary enforcement procedures.&lt;/em&gt;” Thus, Meta should &lt;strong&gt;publicly explain the cross check system &lt;/strong&gt;in detail with examples, and make public the list of attributes that qualify a piece of content for secondary review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;The Operational Principles further provide actionable steps that Meta can take to improve the transparency of their content moderation systems. Drawing from Principle 2: Notice and Principle 3: Appeals, Meta should make a satisfactory &lt;strong&gt;appeals process available &lt;/strong&gt;to users - whether they be decisions to leave up or takedown content. The appeals process should be handled by context aware teams. Meta should then &lt;strong&gt;publish the results&lt;/strong&gt; of the cross check system and the appeals processes as part of their transparency reports including data like total content actioned, rate of success in appeals and cross check process, decisions overturned and preserved etc, which would also satisfy the first Operational Principle: Numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Resources needed to improve the system for users and entities who do not post in English&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Recommendations for the Board: &lt;/strong&gt;The Board must urge Meta to urgently invest in resources to expand Meta’s content moderation services into the local contexts in which the company operates and invest in training data for local languages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Explanation: &lt;/strong&gt;The cross-check system is not a fundamentally different problem than content moderation. It has been shown time and time again that Meta’s handling of content from non-Western, non-English language contexts is severely lacking. It has been shown how content hosted on the platform has been used to&lt;a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang"&gt; inflame existing tensions in developing countries&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-services-are-used-to-spread-religious-hatred-in-india-internal-documents-show-11635016354?mod=article_inline"&gt;promote religious hatred in India&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/burn-the-houses-rohingya-survivors-recount-the-day-soldiers-killed-hundreds-1526048545?mod=article_inline"&gt;genocide in Mynmar&lt;/a&gt;, and continue to support &lt;a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-drug-cartels-human-traffickers-response-is-weak-documents-11631812953?mod=article_inline"&gt;human traffickers and drug cartels&lt;/a&gt; on the platform even when these issues have been identified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;There is an urgent need to invest resources to expand Meta’s content moderation services into the local contexts in which the company operates. The company should make all policies and rule documents available in the languages of its users; invest in creating automated tools that are capable of flagging content that is not posted in English; and add people familiar with the local contexts to provide context aware second level reviews. The Facebook Files show that even according to company engineering, &lt;a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-ai-enforce-rules-engineers-doubtful-artificial-intelligence-11634338184?mod=article_inline"&gt;automated content moderation&lt;/a&gt; is still not very effective in identifying hate speech and other harmful content. Meta should focus on hiring, training and retaining human moderators who have knowledge of local contexts. Bias training of all content moderators, but especially those who will participate in the second level reviews in the cross check system is also extremely important to ensure acceptable decisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Additionally, in keeping with Meta’s human rights commitments, the company should develop and publish a policy for responding to human rights violations when they are pointed out by activists, researchers, journalists and employees as a matter of due process. It should not wait for a negative news cycle to stir them into action &lt;a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang"&gt;as it seems to have done in previous cases&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Benefits and limitations of automated technologies&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Meta &lt;a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/13/21562596/facebook-ai-moderation%5C"&gt;recently changed&lt;/a&gt; its moderation practice wherein it uses technology to prioritize content for human reviewers based on their severity index. Facebook &lt;a href="https://transparency.fb.com/policies/improving/prioritizing-content-review/"&gt;has not specified&lt;/a&gt; the technology it uses to prioritize high-severity content but its research record shows that it &lt;a href="https://ai.facebook.com/blog/the-shift-to-generalized-ai-to-better-identify-violating-content"&gt;uses&lt;/a&gt; a host of automated &lt;a href="https://ai.facebook.com/tools#frameworks-and-tools"&gt;frameworks and tools&lt;/a&gt; to detect violating content, including image recognition tools, object detection tools, natural language processing models, speech models and reasoning models. One such model is the &lt;a href="https://ai.facebook.com/blog/community-standards-report/"&gt;Whole Post Integrity Embeddings&lt;/a&gt; (“WPIE”) which can judge various elements in a given post (caption, comments, OCR, image etc.) to work out the context and the content of the post. Facebook also uses image matching models (SimSearchNet++) that are trained to match variations of an image with a high degree of precision and improved recall; multi-lingual masked language models on cross-lingual understanding such as &lt;a href="https://ai.facebook.com/blog/-xlm-r-state-of-the-art-cross-lingual-understanding-through-self-supervision/"&gt;XLM-R&lt;/a&gt; that can accurately identify hate-speech and other policy-violating content across a wide range of languages. More recently, Facebook introduced its machine translation model called the &lt;a href="https://analyticsindiamag.com/facebooks-new-machine-translation-model-works-without-help-of-english-data/"&gt;M2M-100&lt;/a&gt; whose goal is to perform bidirectional translation between 7000 languages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Despite the advances in this field, there are inherent &lt;a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/157249/cambridge-consultants-ai-content-moderation.pdf"&gt;limitations&lt;/a&gt; of such automated tools. &lt;a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/27/18242724/facebook-moderation-ai-artificial-intelligence-platforms"&gt;Experts&lt;/a&gt; have repeatedly maintained that AI will get better at understanding context but it will not replace human moderators for the foreseeable future. One such instance where these limitations were &lt;a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/facebook-content-moderation-automation/"&gt;exposed&lt;/a&gt; was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Facebook sent its human moderators home - the number of removals flagged as hate speech on its platform more than doubled to 22.5 million in the second quarter of 2020 but the number of successful content appeals was dropped to 12,600 from the 2.3 million figure for the first three months of 2020.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-ai-enforce-rules-engineers-doubtful-artificial-intelligence-11634338184?mod=article_inline"&gt;The Facebook Files&lt;/a&gt; show that Meta’s AI cannot consistently identify first-person shooting videos, racist rants and even the difference between cockfighting and car crashes. Its automated systems are only capable of removing posts that generate just 3% to 5% of the views of hate speech on the platform and 0.6% of all content that violates Meta’s policies against violence and incitement. As such, it is difficult to accept the company’s claim that nearly all of the hate speech it takes down was discovered by AI before it was reported by users.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;However, the benefits of such technology cannot be discounted, especially when one considers automated technology as a way of reducing &lt;a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona"&gt;trauma&lt;/a&gt; for human moderators. Using AI for prioritizing content for review can turn out to be effective for human moderators as it can increase their efficiency and reduce harmful effects of content moderation on them. Additionally, it can also limit the exposure of harmful content to internet users. Moreover, AI can also reduce the impact of harmful content on human moderators by allocating content to moderators on the basis of their exposure history. Theoretically, if the company’s claims are to be believed, using automated technology for prioritizing content for review can help to improve the mental health of Facebook’s human moderators.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Click to download the file &lt;a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/policy-on-cross-checks"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>[in alphabetical order] Anamika Kundu, Digvijay Singh, Divyansha Sehgal and Torsha Sarkar</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Freedom of Speech and Expression</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Freedom</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Facebook</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2022-02-09T05:31:32Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-the-committee-of-experts-on-a-data-protection-framework-for-india">
    <title>Submission to the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-the-committee-of-experts-on-a-data-protection-framework-for-india</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India (“CIS”) on the ‘White Paper of the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India’ (“White Paper”) released by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The White paper was drafted by a Committee of Expert (“Committee”) constituted by the Ministry. CIS has conducted research on the issues of privacy, data protection and data security since 2010 and is thankful for the opportunity to put forth its views. The submission was made on January 31, 2018.&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-the-committee-of-experts-on-a-data-protection-framework-for-india'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-the-committee-of-experts-on-a-data-protection-framework-for-india&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>amber</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Data Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Data Protection</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2018-02-05T13:39:00Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>File</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-on-indias-draft-comments-on-proposed-changes-to-itus-itrs">
    <title>Submission on India's Draft Comments on Proposed Changes to the ITU's ITRs</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-on-indias-draft-comments-on-proposed-changes-to-itus-itrs</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;Given below are the responses from the representatives of civil society in India (The Society for Knowledge Commons, Centre for Internet &amp; Society, The Delhi Science Forum, Free Software Movement of India, Internet Democracy Project and Media for Change) to the Government of India's proposals for the upcoming WCIT meeting, in December 2012, in Dubai.&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Our detailed comments on India's draft proposals can be &lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reaction-to-draft-proposal-from-india-on-final-draft-itr-document-of-itu" class="internal-link"&gt;found here&lt;/a&gt;. Also read the &lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-govts-submission-to-itu" class="internal-link"&gt;final version&lt;/a&gt; of Indian Government's submission to ITU on November 3, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We believe that, aspects of Internet governance that have been and are presently addressed by bodies other than ITU should not be brought under the mandate of the ITU through the ITRs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Some of the proposed changes to the ITR's could have a significant negative impact on the openness of the Internet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In addition, the processes related to the WCIT lack openness and transparency: the WCIT / ITU excludes civil society, academia and other stakeholders from participation in and access to most dialogues and documents, contrary to established principles of Internet governance as laid down in the Tunis Agenda and as supported by the Indian government at several national and international fora. The WCIT process needs to be improved both at the domestic and global level. We urge the Indian government to support a more open process in the future, with respect to deliberations that will have a significant impact on the people.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We recognise that concerns regarding cyber-security, spam, fraud, etc. are real and that some of these concerns require to be addressed at the global level. However, we believe that as a number of parallel processes are working on these specific issues, these need not be brought under the ITRs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We therefore strongly recommend that the ITRs continue to be restricted to the infrastructure layer that has traditionally been the area of its focus and not the content or the application layer of the Internet. Any measure that impinges on these layers should be kept out of ITRs and taken up at other appropriate (multi-stakeholder) fora.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We note that the proposal ARB/7/24 defines an "operating agency" as "&lt;i&gt;any individual, company, corporation or governmental agency which operates a telecommunication installation intended for an international telecommunication service or capable of causing harmful interference with such a service&lt;/i&gt;" and believe that this definition is too broad in scope and ambit. Inclusion of such a term would broaden the mandate of the ITU to regulate numerous actors in the Internet sphere who do not fall under the infrastructure layer of the Internet. We call on the Indian government to ensure that the term "operating agency" is defined in a narrower or more restrictive manner and only used in exceptional cases. Normally, the obligations of member states should be with respect to "recognised operating agencies" and not omnibus all "operating agencies".&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Follow-up&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We would like to note that we have never officially received this document directly from the Indian government. In view of the support the Indian government continually espouses for multi-stakeholder Internet governance, this is a matter of deep regret.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We are aware that the official closing date for proposals is early November. However, we also know that several governments intend to submit proposals right upto the beginning of the WCIT meeting. In addition, several governments have included civil society representatives on their official delegation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;We therefore call upon the Department of Telecommunications to&lt;/i&gt; organise an open consultation with civil society representatives, to discuss both India's proposals and the comments of various civil society representatives on them, in greater depth, &lt;/b&gt;as part of DoT’s preparation for the WCIT meeting and in line with India's espoused commitment to multi-stakeholderism. We look forward to discussing our inputs with the Government to make the decision making process on governance more participatory and inclusive.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-on-indias-draft-comments-on-proposed-changes-to-itus-itrs'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-on-indias-draft-comments-on-proposed-changes-to-itus-itrs&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>pranesh</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>WCIT</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>ITU</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2012-12-07T04:15:56Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-on-proposals-for-future-itrs-and-related-processes">
    <title>Submission by Indian Civil Society Organisations on Proposals for the Future ITRs and Related Processes</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-on-proposals-for-future-itrs-and-related-processes</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;The Centre for Internet &amp; Society was one of the signatories of this submission which was sent in November 2012, in response to the International Telecommunication Union's call for public comments in relation to the  revision of International Telecommunication Regulations that are to take place at the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai from December 3 to 14, 2012.
&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We, the undersigned civil society organisations from India, respectfully acknowledge the important role that the ITU has played in the spread of telecommunications around the world. However, we are concerned about the lack of transparency and openness of the processes related to the WCIT: the WCIT/ITU excludes civil society, academia and other stakeholders from participation in and access to most dialogues and documents.  The documents that are publicly available show that some of the proposals might deal with Internet governance. According to established principles as laid down in the Tunis Agenda - which process the ITU helped to lead - Internet governance processes are required to be multistakeholder in nature. The WCIT and ITU processes require urgent improvement with regard to openness, inclusiveness and transparency. While we appreciate the current opportunity to share our comments, we would like to encourage the ITU and its Member States to adopt a genuine multistakeholder approach at the earliest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;As mentioned, we do welcome the current opportunity to share our thoughts. Though this list is not exhaustive, some of our major concerns are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We believe that, given the historical development of present methods of internet regulation, aspects of Internet governance that have been and are presently addressed by bodies other than ITU should not be brought under the mandate of the ITU through the ITRs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We therefore strongly recommend that the ITRs continue to be restricted to aspects of the physical layer that have traditionally been the areas of its focus. The ITRs scope should not be expanded to other layers, nor to content - any measure that impinges on these layers should be kept out of ITRs and taken up at other appropriate (multi-stakeholder) fora. In addition, it is crucial that “ICTs” and the term “processing” be excluded from the definition of telecommunication as this clearly opens up the possibility for Member States to regulate/attempt to regulate the “content/“application” layer on the internet at the ITU.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We also recommend that provisions regarding international naming, numbering, addressing and identification resources will be restricted to telephony, as should provisions regarding transit rate, originating identification and end-to-end QoS. Provisions regarding the routing of Internet traffic should not find a place in the ITRs at all.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We recognise that concerns regarding cyber security, spam, fraud, etc. are real and that some of these concerns require to be addressed at the global level. However, as these are being discussed in many other fora, we believe that the ITRs are not the best place to address these. Their inclusion here could inhibit the further evolution and expansion of the Internet. We also believe that any fora discussing cyber security should be multistakeholder, open and transparent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We note that the proposal ARB/7/24 defines an “operating agency” as “&lt;i&gt;any individual, company, corporation or governmental agency which operates a telecommunication installation intended for an international telecommunication service or capable of causing harmful interference with such a service&lt;/i&gt;” and believe that this definition is too broad in scope and ambit. Inclusion of such a term would broaden the mandate of the ITU to regulate numerous actors in the Internet sphere who do not fall under the infrastructure layer of the Internet. The term “operating agency” should be defined in a narrower or more restrictive manner and, irrespective of its exact definition, only be used in exceptional cases. Normally, the obligations of member states should be with respect to “recognised operating agencies” and not omnibus all “operating agencies”.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Centre for Internet and Society&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Delhi Science Forum&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Free Software Movement India&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Internet Democracy Project&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Knowledge Commons (India)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-on-proposals-for-future-itrs-and-related-processes'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-on-proposals-for-future-itrs-and-related-processes&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>pranesh</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>WCIT</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>ITU</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2012-12-07T08:00:19Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/nishant/iacs%20article.pdf">
    <title>Subject To Technology</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/nishant/iacs%20article.pdf</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;This paper is an attempt to examine the production of illegalities with reference to cyberspace, to make a symptomatic reading of new conditions within which citizenships are enacted, in the specific context of contemporary India. Looking at one incident each, of cyber-pornography and cyber-terrorism, the paper sets out to look at the State’s imagination of the digital domain, the positing of the ‘good’ cyber citizen, and the production of new relationships between the state and the subject. This essay explores the ambiguities, the dilemmas and the questions that arise when Citizens become Subjects, not only to the State but also to the technologies of the State. The paper first appeared in the Inter Asia Cultural Studies Journal.&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/nishant/iacs%20article.pdf'&gt;https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/nishant/iacs%20article.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>nishant</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2009-07-06T12:06:10Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>File</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/news/open-glam-working-group-members-subhashish-panigrahi">
    <title>Subhashish Panigrahi joins Open GLAM Working Group</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/news/open-glam-working-group-members-subhashish-panigrahi</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;Subhashish recently joined the OpenGLAM Working Group (a global network of people who work to open up cultural data and content.) as a member and OpenGLAM Local (a local affiliate of OKFN's OpenGLAM project) as an ambassador for India. Both the positions will be voluntary. &lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;h2&gt;OpenGLAM Working Group&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The OpenGLAM Working Group is a global network of people who work to open up cultural data and content. We run workshops and provide documentation for cultural institutions wanting to open up their data as well as organise events bringing together groups that are committed to building an open cultural commons. The Working Group Members act as a bridge between different organisations and initiatives, and the global network. We meet every month virtually to discuss relevant updates, pressing issues, and next steps to be taken. If you are interested in joining, please get in touch with &lt;a href="mailto:openglam.org"&gt;openglam@okfn.org&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Read the full details &lt;a class="external-link" href="http://openglam.org/working-group/"&gt;on this page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Open GLAM Local&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;OpenGLAM has established several local groups as well as &lt;a class="external-link" href="http://openglam.org/local/"&gt;OpenGLAM ambassadors&lt;/a&gt; to serve as the local point of contact in their area. They are closely connected to the Local Groups of the Open Knowledge Foundation and work on open culture in these local groups. Subhashish Panigrahi is the local contact in India.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/news/open-glam-working-group-members-subhashish-panigrahi'&gt;https://cis-india.org/news/open-glam-working-group-members-subhashish-panigrahi&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Openness</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Wikipedia</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Access to Knowledge</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Wikimedia</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2014-05-27T09:40:40Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>News Item</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/subbiah-arunachalam">
    <title>Subbiah Arunachalam</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/subbiah-arunachalam</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;Subbiah Arunachalam&lt;/b&gt; (known to friends as Arun) started his career as a research chemist, but found his calling in information science. In the past four decades, he has been a student of chemistry, a laboratory researcher (at the Central Electrochemical Research Institute and the Indian Institute of Science), an editor of scientific journals (at the Publications and Information Directorate of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the Indian Academy of Sciences), the secretary of a scholarly academy of sciences (IASc), a teacher of information science (at the Indian National Scientific Documentation Centre), and a development researcher (at the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and the Indian Institute of Technology Madras). While working with M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, he initiated the South-South Exchange Traveling Workshop to facilitate hands on cross-cultural learning for knowledge workers from Africa, Asia and Latin America engaged in ICT-enabled development.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Arun has been on the editorial boards of six international refereed journals including &lt;i&gt;Journal of Information Science&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Journal of Community Informatics&lt;/i&gt;, and &lt;i&gt;Current Contents&lt;/i&gt;; till recently he was  a member of the international advisory board of IICD, The Hague, and a Trustee of the Voicing the Voiceless Foundation. Currently he is a trustee of the Electronic Publishing Trust for Development.  Improving information access both for scientists and for the rural poor; scientometrics, ICT-enabled development and open access are among his current research interests.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/subbiah-arunachalam'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/subbiah-arunachalam&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2014-10-23T05:08:54Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Page</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_studying-the-internet-discourse-in-india-through-the-prism-of-human-rights">
    <title>Studying the Internet Discourse in India through the Prism of Human Rights</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_studying-the-internet-discourse-in-india-through-the-prism-of-human-rights</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;This post by Deva Prasad M is part of the 'Studying Internets in India' series. Deva Prasad is Assistant Professor at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore. In this essay, he analyses key public discussions around Internet related issues from the human rights angle, and explores how this angle may contribute to understanding the features of the Internet discourse in India.&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Introduction&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The significance of Internet as an important element and tool in day-to-day life of mankind is an established experiential fact. The intrinsic value that Internet brings to our lives has transformed the access to Internet as a necessity. Internet’s intrinsic value acts an enabling tool for information, communication and commerce to be effectively and expeditiously carried forward. It is to due to this enormous intrinsic value attached with Internet that there is an emerging trend of exploring Internet from the perspective of human rights. Moreover, Internet as a medium also helps in furtherance of human rights [1]. Social movements have attained a new lease of life with the digital activism over Internet. Arab spring is an epitome of this phenomenon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is an emerging positive trend of linking established norms of human rights with Internet. The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression has vividly explained the possibility and feasibility of extending and extrapolating the right of freedom of opinion and expression to Internet medium (Article 19 of the UDHR and the ICCPR) [2]. The Special Rapporteur also highlights the need to have access to Internet for effective enjoyment of right to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital sphere. The UN High Commissioner on Human Right’s report on‘The Right To Privacy In The Digital Age’ also explicitly highlights the significance of protecting the right to privacy in the internet medium in light of extensive “surveillance and the interception of digital communications and the collection of personal data” [3]. The extensive interception and blocking of the online communication is also a pertinent reason, which calls for human right protection to be extended to Internet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The WSIS Declaration for Building of Information Society [4] and the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet [5] also have played a significant role in furthering the inter-linkage between human rights and Internet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Internet and human rights policy developments have gathered significant relevance in international human rights law and Internet policy fora. But it is interesting to note that the Indian government and state institutional mechanisms have not yet pro-actively accepted relevance of applying human rights norm to the Internet medium in India.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As an essay in the Studying Internet series, it is important to highlight how human rights acts as underlying factors in many socio-political issues pertaining to Internet in India. Analysis of these issues helps us to understand that, even though the Indian state turns a blind eye to the human rights element in the various socio-political issues relating to Internet, the digitally conscious Indian’s have realized their rights and even fought their own battle for exercising their rights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In recent years, the Internet discourse in India has witnessed many socio-political concerns. This essay would be exploring the pertinent socio-political issues in Indian context and the underlying link to human rights thread. Globally, exploring Internet from the perspective of human rights brings out multitude of issues, which requires application of established human rights norms of right to privacy, freedom of expression, access. The story in India is no different. In this regard, three socio-political issues relating to Internet, which gained much attention in India roughly in last one year, are being analyzed. Interestingly, all three issues have an underlying thread of human right perspective connecting them and need pertinent deliberation from human rights perspective.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Section 66A and Freedom of Speech and Expression&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The lack of freedom of expression on Internet and Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 is an interesting case study. Indian government used Section 66A as a tool for extensive surveillance and had taken criminal legal action against the Internet and social media users for posting the offensive comments and posts. But Section 66A was badly drafted allowing the government to initiate criminal legal action in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. Thus such a provision could be misused by the state for curbing the freedom of expression in the Internet sphere. The rampant usage of the Indian state machinery of Section 66A had led to sharp reaction amongst the Internet and social media users in India. The vagueness in language and unconstitutionality of Section 66A were criticized by legal experts. The action of state machinery in arresting a cartoonist, a professor and two girls in Maharashtra [6] (and many others) for comments and post on social media against politicians, had made it evident the lack of respect for freedom for speech and expression on Internet by the Indian state machinery (Most of these incidents took place during the year 2012).  These incidents led to wide spread protest for violation of human right to freedom of speech and expression by the digital media users. When the Public Interest Litigation [7] filed by Shreya Singhal led to the Supreme Court striking down the Section 66A on 24th March, 2015 for lack of due process being followed, it was a water shed moment for internet discourse in India. The significance of human rights (especially the freedom of speech and expression) in the Internet medium got asserted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Net Neutrality and Internet Access Issue&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The recent net neutrality debate in India has also evoked deliberation about the right of equal access to Internet and the need to maintain Internet as a democratic space. The net neutrality debate on keeping Internet a democratic space that is equally accessible to everyone has got much vogue in India. An important point that needs to be emphasized in the debate regarding net neutrality in India is the equal access question being raised. The equal access question is more a product of the lack of regulatory clarity regarding TRAI’s (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) capacity to regulate the Over-the top (OTT) services; coupled with the lack of well stipulated right to internet access in the Indian context.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The net neutrality rides on the premise that the entire data available on the Internet should be equally accessible to everyone. No discrimination should be allowed regarding access to a particular website or any particular content on the Internet. Tim Wu, a renowned scholar in Internet and communication law has mentioned in his seminal work, &lt;em&gt;Network Neutrality and Broadband Discrimination&lt;/em&gt;, that network neutrality signifies “an Internet that does not favor one application” [8].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this regard, there has been a constructive dialogue between the Federal Communication Commission in United States and the various stakeholders. An interesting development was a proposition, which attempted to classify broadband internet service access as a public utility [9]. There is much relevance for such debates in the Indian context. India also needs public participation (especially strong voices from internet user’s perspective) to highlight these access concerns regarding Internet. Human right’s concerns regarding Internet should be pro-actively brought to the attention of regulatory institutions such as TRAI. There is need to balance the economic and for-profit interest of service providers with the larger public interest based on equal access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The pressure created by public opinion through online activism upon the TRAI’s proposal to regulate the OTT services helps in understanding the power of public participation in the pertinent human rights issues relating to Internet [10]. The broader design in which the principle of human rights in the context of Internet medium would have to be asserted in India is also vividly seen in the case of protest against OTT regulation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Right to be Forgotten in EU and Repercussions in India&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The repercussions of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ judgment of European Union also had led to debate of similar rights in Indian context. The Google v. AEPD and Mario Cosjeta [11] is an interesting case decided by the Court of Justice of European Union, where the court held that based on the right to privacy and data protection, persons could ask databases (this case was against the search engine Google) on Internet medium to curtail from referring to certain aspects of their personal information [12]. This is basically referred to as ‘right to be forgotten’.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Viktor Mayor Schonberg in his book &lt;em&gt;Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in Digital Age&lt;/em&gt; has elaborated the problem of how the digital age coupled with the Internet has led to store, disseminate and track information in a substantially easy way and advocates for the more informational privacy rights [13]. In this judgment, the Court of Justice of European Union has furthered the information privacy rights in the European Union with the ‘right to be forgotten’.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Indian context, it is important to note that information privacy rights are yet to evolve to the extent that of European Union with definite privacy and data protection law. But interestingly, there was a request made to a media news website by a person attempting to enforce the right to be forgotten [14]. Even though the application of right to be forgotten is not directly applicable in the Indian context, this event throws light to the fact that Internet users in India are becoming conscious of their rights in the Internet space. The way Indian news media gave relevance to the right to be forgotten ruling also is an example of how there is an implicit recognition of the interlink between human rights and Internet that is slowly seeping into the Indian milieu.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Internet Discourse in India and Human Rights&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Discussion of the three issues mentioned above points out to an important fact that human rights are not pro-actively applied to the Internet medium by the Indian state machinery. Even though the international human rights law and various Internet policy organizations are pushing the Internet and human rights agenda, the same is yet to gain momentum in India.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But at the same time, an interesting development that could be witnessed from the above discussion is the manner in which the Internet users are asserting their rights over the Internet and slowly paving the path for an enriching view towards applying the human rights perspective to Internet. In the first instance, the freedom of speech and expression was not pro-actively applied to the digital space and Internet. This has happened when Article 19 of Constitution of India has clearly provided for freedom of speech and expression. The second instance of net neutrality has thrown wide open the lack of clear policy regarding Internet access in Indian context.  The public opinion has pointed out to the fact that there is a public interest demand to ensure that there is no discrimination in the case of Internet access. The third instance of looking at ‘right to be forgotten’ in Indian perspective, provides the understanding that the users of Internet are becoming conscious of their individual rights in the digital space in a more affirmative manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the operationalization of human rights in these three instances also needs to be critically looked into. The assertion of the freedom of speech and expression in the Internet medium could be made possible effectively due to the fact that Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950, protects freedom of speech and expression. The vast amount of precedence existing in the field of freedom of speech and expression relating to constitutional litigation and allied jurisprudence has helped in crafting the extension of the right of freedom of expression to the digital medium of Internet. Further, using the social action tool of Public Interest Litigation, the unconstitutionality of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950 could be brought before the Supreme Court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But interestingly, the net neutrality issue, which is concerning the access to Internet in a non-discriminatory manner, is yet to be perceived in Indian context from a strong human rights perspective. Internet access as a public utility concept is yet to be evolved and articulated in concrete manner in the Indian context. Further, the Indian network neutrality discourse attempts to operationalize through the free market approach. In the free market approach the entire non-discriminatory access has to be ensured by the market competition with the necessary regulatory bodies. In this sense, the human rights angle of access to Internet will have to be ensured by effective competition in the market along with the proper oversight of regulatory bodies such as TRAI and Competition Commission of India. It is important for the regulatory bodies to have broad goals for furthering public interest by ensuring non-discriminatory access to Internet. Further, with the financial and infrastructure led limitations of government’s capability of ensuring access to Internet for all, the market-led model with sufficient regulation might be the right way forward.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Looking at the issue of the right to be forgotten, it could be easily perceived that the Indian milieu is yet to articulate privacy rights to that high standard. Even though the right to privacy is being understood in the constitutional law context through effective interpretation by the judiciary, the concept of digital privacy has not yet evolved in India. There is no collective understanding, till now, that has emerged regarding right to be forgotten in India. Even though individual attempts to assert the right was witnessed, there is much room for an evolved collective understanding in Indian context. Civil society organizations would have a crucial role to play in this regard.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is an emerging consciousness amongst a set of Internet users in India, who values and gives importance to the Internet being a democratic space, without unwanted restriction from the government machinery or even the private entities. Hence looking at the Internet discourse of India from the perspective of human rights, there is an implicit way in which the human rights are being applied to the Internet space. The lack of a state’s pro-active approach in asserting human rights to Internet space is highlighted by the assertions being made by the Internet users in India.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Way Forward&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For Internet to remain as a democratic space, there is need for pro-active application of these human rights norms and clear understanding in Internet governance. At present, the state of affairs in India regarding application of human rights to Internet is far from satisfactory.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This essay which is part of the ‘Studying Internet in India’ series, has till now done a stock taking analysis of emerging dimension of human rights and Internet in India. Lack of interest from government and state machinery to further the human rights and Internet dimension need to be seriously reconsidered. Attempting to intervene in Internet law and policy in India from the rights based approach should be an important agenda for furthering digital rights in India. For this, civil society organizations have an important role to play.  Exploring the public interest could be done effectively with public participation of stakeholders. Here in, platforms such as India Internet Governance Forum could play a crucial role.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apart from the civil society organizations, it is also pertinent for state and governmental institutional mechanism to also take a pro-active stance. For ensuring that the rights based approach to Internet has to be duly included in the Internet law and policy; and there should be institutional mechanism, which could look into areas pertaining to human rights and Internet. It is a well know fact that India lacks institutional mechanism for looking into communication and privacy issues regulation. Further, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also needs to look at the relevance of human rights for Internet. Inspiration could be drawn from the pioneering work of Australian Commission of Human Rights on applying human rights norms and standards to Internet medium [15].  This essay has only flagged the need to apply the established human rights norms to Internet space. Much more issues such as access to Internet by disabled, safety of children and Internet medium are also pertinent areas.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, it is important to have digital rights of Internet users in India to be explicitly enshrined in a legal framework. Presently, a gap in law and policy framework regarding human rights and Internet is evident, as highlighted in this essay. The pertinent questions regarding access, privacy and freedom of expression are to be taken seriously by the government and state machinery for which clear and well-defined rights relating to Internet space have to be framed. For Internet and human rights to be taken seriously, it is high time that legal and institutional framework to explore these issues also are evolved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Emphasizing the Right to Communication in India&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the present understanding of right to communication in India, which is perceived in narrow manner, could be re-worked with the help of a pro-active application of human rights norms to the Internet governance. The intrusion into the freedom of speech and expression especially in the telecommunication context has to be highlighted. Protection of communal harmony has been used as rationale for capping the number of the SMS messages that could be sent per day during the exodus of people of Northeastern states origin from Bangalore, Pune and other major cities in India.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This move has been criticized for being unreasonable and universality of capping the number of SMS messages [16]. Further, the telecommunication and Internet services (especially Facebook and YouTube) were blocked in Kashmir for restricting the protest [17]. The telecommunication and Internet services were blocked on the grounds of protection of national security.  The reasonableness of restrictions that could be imposed on right to communication is a major concern in the above-mentioned instances. Making a blanket ban applicable in a universal manner undermines the right to communication of various genuine users of bulk messaging and social media sites.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The right to communication especially in the digital and telecommunication media needs to be emphasized. Applying human rights perspective and norms to Internet governance would help in articulating and evolving the right to communication in India. With adequate institutional oversight, the human rights norms could make the digital right to communication an effective right.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To conclude, the Internet discourse in India has already paved path for human rights norms to be applied to Internet space. The seriousness that could be attributed to those rights is evident by the assertions by the Internet users in India. But the state and government machinery in India also should explore the human rights and Internet agenda seriously.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Endnotes&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[1] Frank La Rue, Report Of The Special Rapporteur On The Promotion And Protection Of The Right To  Freedom Of Opinion And Expression, Available at &lt;a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf"&gt;http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[2] Ibid, Special Rapporteur in the Report points out that the language of Article 19 of ICCPR is media neutral and is applicable to online media technological developments also. Para 20 and 21 of the Report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[3] UN High Commissioner on Human Right, Report on ‘The Right To Privacy In The Digital Age’, Available at &lt;a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.37_en.pdf"&gt;http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.37_en.pdf&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[4] WSIS Declaration for Building of Information Society, Available at &lt;a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html"&gt;http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html&lt;/a&gt;. (Last accessed on 25/05/2015). Article 58, WSIS Declaration reads as follows: “The use of ICTs and content creation should respect human rights and fundamental freedoms of others, including personal privacy, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in conformity with relevant international instruments”.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[5] Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet Available at &lt;a href="http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf"&gt;http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf&lt;/a&gt;, (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[6] See Section 66A:Six Cases That Sparked Debate, Available at &lt;a href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/xnoW0mizd6RYbuBPY2WDnM/Six-cases-where-the-draconian-Section-66A-was-applied.html"&gt;http://www.livemint.com/Politics/xnoW0mizd6RYbuBPY2WDnM/Six-cases-where-the-draconian-Section-66A-was-applied.html&lt;/a&gt;, (Last accessed on 25/05/2015). Also see, Facebook Trouble:10 Cases of Arrest Under Section 66A of IT Act, Available at &lt;a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-people-arrested-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/article1-1329883.aspx"&gt;http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-people-arrested-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/article1-1329883.aspx&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[7] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Available at &lt;a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/"&gt;http://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[8] Tim Wu, Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, Available at &lt;a href="https://cdt.org/files/speech/net-neutrality/2005wu.pdf"&gt;https://cdt.org/files/speech/net-neutrality/2005wu.pdf&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[9] F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility, Available at &lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[10] The online campaign by www.savetheinternet.in and the AIB video have played a crucial role in gathering public support.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[11] Court of Justice of European Union, Case C-131/12.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[12] Rising like a Phoenix: The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ before the ECJ, Available at &lt;a href="http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351"&gt;http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[13] Viktor Mayor Schonberg, Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in Digital Age, Princeton University Press (2009).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[14] Right to be Forgotten Poses A Legal Dilemma in India, Available at &lt;a href="http://www.livemint.com/Industry/5jmbcpuHqO7UwX3IBsiGCM/Right-to-be-forgotten-poses-a-legal-dilemma-in-India.html"&gt;http://www.livemint.com/Industry/5jmbcpuHqO7UwX3IBsiGCM/Right-to-be-forgotten-poses-a-legal-dilemma-in-India.html&lt;/a&gt;, (Last accessed on 25/05/2015). Also see We received a Right to be Forgotten request from an Indian user, Available at &lt;a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/06/223-right-to-be-forgotten-india/"&gt;http://www.medianama.com/2014/06/223-right-to-be-forgotten-india/&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[15] Human Rights and Internet, Available at &lt;a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/projects/human-rights-and-internet"&gt;https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/projects/human-rights-and-internet&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[16] Chinmayi Arun, SMS Block as Threat to Free Speech, Available at &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-the-hindubusinessline-op-ed-sep-1-2012-chinmayi-arun-sms-block-as-threat-to-free-speech"&gt;http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-the-hindubusinessline-op-ed-sep-1-2012-chinmayi-arun-sms-block-as-threat-to-free-speech&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 15/07/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[17] Pamposh Raina and Betwa Sharma, Telecom Services Blocked to Curb Protests in Kashmir, Available at &lt;a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/telecom-services-blocked-to-curb-protests-in-kashmir/?_r=0"&gt;http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/telecom-services-blocked-to-curb-protests-in-kashmir/?_r=0&lt;/a&gt; (Last accessed on 15/07/2015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Author's Note: All the views expressed are my own and in no way are linked to the opinion of my employers. I thank CIS for this opportunity to explore Internet and Human Rights interface in India as part of the Studying Internet in India essay series.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: The post is published under &lt;a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank"&gt;Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International&lt;/a&gt; license, and copyright is retained by the author.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_studying-the-internet-discourse-in-india-through-the-prism-of-human-rights'&gt;https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_studying-the-internet-discourse-in-india-through-the-prism-of-human-rights&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>Deva Prasad M</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Human Rights</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Studies</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>RAW Blog</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Human Rights Online</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Researchers at Work</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-07-22T04:18:37Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/raw/cis-and-apu-studying-platform-work-in-mumbai-and-new-delhi">
    <title>Studying Platform Work in Mumbai &amp; New Delhi</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/raw/cis-and-apu-studying-platform-work-in-mumbai-and-new-delhi</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;A report by Centre for Internet &amp; Society (CIS) and Azim Premji University (APU) maps platform work in India and notes from four studies of workers driving taxis and delivering food for platform companies. 

&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;h2 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Introduction&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;With the arrival and rapid spread of gig platforms in India and across the world, scholars across fields – from economics and sociology to digital and new media studies – started to investigate how app-based gig platforms are affecting large and small-scale social and economic transformations. In the ‘first wave’ of gig economy research, scholars questioned the nomenclature itself, debating whether it should be called the ‘sharing economy’, gig economy, or rental economy. The impetus for these debates was, perhaps, that we already had some existing models for the sharing economy that largely drew on the idea of ‘the commons’ – or the general understanding that highly networked environments would offer people the opportunity to share their knowledge and spare resources freely, without charge, thus bypassing established corporate oligopolies as well as national and international laws that restricted free movement and access to knowledge and resources – especially for people from the so-called ‘developing’ world. To that effect, there exists valuable research now that bridges the moment of the sharing economy with the gig economy. For instance, Lampinen and colleagues studied older platforms and communities, like Couch Surfing, which allowed people to host and live on other people’s couches (or in their spare rooms) for no cost. The same set of scholars also studied Air Bnb and offered comparative understandings of how norms and expectations around partaking in (someone’s) idle resources change when the ‘gig logic’ enters the frame and platforms become real-time marketplaces for the exchange of goods and services, as against a temporally slower and more altruistic community-based model of sharing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The ‘second wave’ of gig economy research, mostly originating in and responding to technological,social, and economic developments in North America and Western Europe, has focused on the disruptive effects of gig platforms on employment trends and the future of work. To elaborate, these scholars argue that gig platforms, by offering the promise of flexible work and quick earnings, but not the benefits of full-time, standard employment,are contributing to the ongoing casualisation and precaritisation of work at large. As marketplaces powered by algorithmic decision-making,platforms often argue that the resultant prices as well as earnings are not a product of human or organisational decisions but rather a result of algorithmic decisions and data points. Since these algorithmic systems are ‘black boxed’ or treated as highly confidential intellectual property, there is little scope to audit or ‘peek’ into their workings to understand how or why ‘real-time dynamic surge pricing’ works the way it does. A related host of issues concerns over the employment status of gig platform workers. As critics of platforms have noted, while platform companies classify workers as ‘independent contractors’ or‘vendors’, gig workers satisfy all the requirements of the employment test and thus deserve tobe recognised and compensated as full-time employees. In a landmark case brought forth by gig worker representatives in the UK, the court did recognise platform workers as employees and called for companies to reclassify them as such. Underlying debates around employment classification, compensation, and job security are united by a centralised theme that resonates with labour scholars globally – the (in)formalisation of work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Reclassifying gig workers as full-time employees would further make them eligible for paid sick leave, maternity leave, and other health benefits, and would possibly make them eligible for minimum wage as well, thus leading to the formalisation and increased regulation of gig work.As scholars of platform work (including crowdwork) outside of industrialised countries have noted, even reclassification or simply recognising these jobs as a part of the formal sector may not necessarily translate to similar benefits or increased salaries in the longer term. Juxtaposed against a landscape of ubiquitous informality, as in the case of India, gig work does offer some features and affordances of formal work, such as financialisation, formal contracts, and the ability to at least appeal unfair practices, albeit to a limited degree. However, formalisation for its own sake in traditional legal and economistic terms may neither be possible nor entirely in response to the unique moment of precarity in the global South, where youth unemployment and skill and job misalignment, among other structural issues, inform the horizon of what kinds of futures are possible and how to attain them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;However, investigating questions of work, futures, and digital participation are not merely about finding answers to challenges in structural economic development and long- and short-term policy-making. The present, so to speak, is far from being determined by, or lived out in, the service of state or corporate visions; it is not the result of what happens between people as they participate on digital platforms. What happens to urban spaces; notions of kinship, publicity, social relationships, and hierarchies; and quotidian understandings of money, desire, aspirations, respect, morals, and justice is equally rich and important when understanding social transformation and the contribution of digital media to social change. Further, rather than approach economic, social, and cultural encounters as separate, we find it valuable to unpack platform encounters and exchanges, as we describe them in this report, as socio-technical and digital-cultural texts that hold within them the working out of macro and micro phenomena. Why and how rural, urban, migrant, and local workers take up gig work and invest in certain kinds of smartphones, cars, scooters, friendships, relationships, and uniforms cannot be attributed only to economic rationality or macro-sociological factors. But, simultaneously, in addition to these material cues, the conversations between gig workers, the norms they hold, and the norms that are in the process of being worked out as they go through their daily motions and emotions, their changing fashioning of the self, the perplexity resulting from daily work within an environment where they get very little information beforehand – all these are important forms of evidence to understand the human-machine encounter within a global South context and the resultant transformation of the self and society. Class, gender, and caste power in urban India are constantly being asserted, challenged, and reworked, not just through visible, large-scale social movements, but also through habits of consumption, intimate conversation, and encounters with the ‘other’. In the field reports that follow, researchers have tried to mine and attend to these daily intimate platform encounters to produce traces of what is ongoing and still being worked out: the process of platformisation and its social, cultural, and digital effects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;When we imagined this project, we were responding to some of the gaps as well as the disciplinary orthodoxy of scholarship that dictates platform studies and digital labour scholarship. We deliberately wanted to follow and replicate more generative approaches to the study of capitalisms and platform capitalism in this case. To that effect, we wanted to focus on the life worlds and laboring practices of gig workers, looking beyond the money they make through apps, how they are treated by platform companies, and how they resist their algorithmic management. As we succeeded in some measure through each field report, our aim was to recentre gig platform scholarship around who these workers are as urban dwellers, as gendered, caste, and class-ed bodies navigating Indian city spaces, and how their aspirations, constraints, and understandings of success, money, safety, and respect inform their encounters with the platform company, customers, police personnel, and the app itself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We, the team at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, as well as co-principal investigator (PI), Noopur Raval, and field researchers, Anushree Gupta, Rajendra Jadhav, Sarah Zia, and Simiran Lalvani, are grateful to the Azim Premji University Research Grants Programme for their generous sponsorship and support for the project. This project contributes to thinking about the Future(s) of Work theme that is an active area of inquiry within the university and beyond. To reiterate, digital labour and platform studies scholarship in India and the global South is still at a nascent stage. Since the time we conceptualised, conducted, and analysed this gig work research, more studies have emerged (including studies by other researchers at CIS), and our report adds to this growing field of inquiry. The insights we present far from foreclose the questions or even the lines of inquiry that we open here. The report is structured as follows: we begin by reflecting on the changes in the gig work landscape after the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically in terms of how the pandemic has affected working-class communities, and, by extension, those who work in the platform economy. Subsequently, we present individual field reports by three field researchers, Sarah Zia, Simiran Lalvani, and Anushree Gupta, who reflect on their studies of gig work in Mumbai and Delhi, respectively. The report ends with a short conclusion and some methodological reflections that we gathered during the project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Access the &lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-platform-work-in-mumbai-new-delhi.pdf" class="internal-link"&gt;full report here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/cis-and-apu-studying-platform-work-in-mumbai-and-new-delhi'&gt;https://cis-india.org/raw/cis-and-apu-studying-platform-work-in-mumbai-and-new-delhi&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>Anushree Gupta, Rajendra Jadhav, Sarah Zia, Simiran Lalvani and Noopur Raval</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Platform Economy</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Gig Work</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Researchers at Work</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2022-05-05T17:13:10Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-selected-abstracts">
    <title>Studying Internet in India: Selected Abstracts</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-selected-abstracts</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;We received thirty five engaging abstracts in response to the call for essays on 'Studying Internet in India.' Here are the ten selected abstracts. The final essays will be published from June onwards.&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Deva Prasad M - 'Studying the Internet Discourse in India through the Prism of Human Rights'&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Exploring Internet from the perspective of human rights gives rise to the multitude of issues such as right to privacy, freedom of expression, accessibility. Pertinent socio-political and legal issues related to Internet which was widely debated upon in the past one year in India includes lack of freedom of expression on Internet and Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000. The recent net neutrality debate in India has also evoked deliberation about the right of equal accessibility to Internet and to maintain Internet as a democratic space. The repercussions of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ law of European Union also had led to debate of similar rights in Indian context. Interestingly all these issues have an underlying thread of human right perspective connecting them and need pertinent deliberation from human rights perspective.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This paper is an attempt to understand and analyze theses issues from the human rights angle and also how they have contributed in evolving an understanding and perspective amongst the digitally conscious Indian’s to ensure the democratic nature of “Internet” is perceived. Moreover, analysis of these three issues would also help in emphasizing upon the need for a right-based approach in studying Internet in India.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Dibyajyoti Ghosh - 'Indic Scripts and the Internet'&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whereas the status of the internet in India is similar to the status of the internet in similar economies with low-penetration and a primarily mobile-based future, an alphabetically diverse nation such as India has its added worries. Whereas the 1990s saw an overdomination of English given the linguistic communities which were developing the world of computers and the world of the internet, by 2015, some of the disparity with offline linguistic patterns has been reduced. However, for Indic scripts, much less development has taken place. If one is studying the internet in India, chances are one is studying it in English.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What does this hold for the future of these Indic scripts? Given the multilingual skills of Indian school-goers and the increasing amount of daily reading time of those connected to the internet (which is somewhere between 12% and 20% of the population) being devoted to reading on the internet, chances are reading is increasingly in English. In this essay, I shall attempt to study the effects this has on the internet population of India, some of which are as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The kind of mimetic desire it causes&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The degneration in spelling skills caused due to transliteration&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The effacement of non-digitised Indic verbal texts&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Divij Joshi - 'The Internet in the Indian Judicial Imagination'&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first mention of the 'Internet' in the vocabulary of Indian judicial system was a fleeting reference to its radical capability to allow access to knowledge. In one of its most recent references, it expounded upon and upheld the idea of the Internet as a radical tool for free expression, announcing its constitutional significance for free speech.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The judicial imagination of the Internet – the understanding of its capabilities and limitations, its actors and constituents, as reflected in the judgements of Indian courts – plays a major role in shaping the Internet in India, both reflecting and defining conceptions of the Internet and its relationship with society, law, and public policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This essay is an attempt to use legal and literary theory to study the archives of judicial decisions, tracing the history of the Internet in India through the lens of judicial trends, and also to look at how the judiciary has defined its own role in relation to the Internet. It attempts a vital study of how courts in India have conceptualized and understood the Internet, and how these conceptions have, in turn, impacted the influence of the Internet on Indian society.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Ipsita Sengupta&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The proposed essay will make observations of a specific kind of conversation that takes place on the social media platform of YouTube. The conclusive argument is imagined along questions of high versus low culture, as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under study are two objects- one, particular YouTube videos which play Rabindra-Sangeet, i.e. songs penned and composed in the late 19- early 20th centuries by the Bengali writer and artist Rabindranath Tagore, the body of work which today has become a genre of Indian music; and the second, comments that these videos receive from users of the site.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Visuals of YouTube song videos of Rabindra-Sangeet are of many kinds. So are renditions, with solitary or duet or band performances, and with varying pace and instrumental accompaniment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The videos which have visuals from contemporary cinema, like images of urban youth, and the remixed renditions have often been found to receive comments which reflect/ reveal hurt sentiments of people trying to preserve some kind of sanctity of Rabindra-Sangeet, comments which state how the ethics of presenting the genre have been violated, via their notation and design, by either makers of the film in the song’s incorporation, or by the way young pop stars have been placed in particular montages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;iframe src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/1aGwOBgyWTo?rel=0" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;iframe src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/8_z3blCxCCQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In such a scenario, YouTube as medium of user-generated expression becomes interesting to analyse individual and group dynamics- given the space for commenting (below the video), and statistical data such as “Likes”, “Dislikes”, and “Views”. The debate here is that in Tagore’s “Nationalism”, when he himself is seen to have an imagination of the human race beyond patriotic groupings and consequent othering, does this apparent need to avoid “insulting” his compositions by preserving an intangible art form in a particular way, become then a type of jingoism of region or identity? And what is this Benjaminian “aura” of the “original” that listeners look for in their experience of these videos?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Laird Brown - 'Dharamsala Networked'&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Three hours after regulations governing public access to WiFi in India were changed in 2005 the first router went up in Dharamsala. It was homemade, open source, and eventually, “monkey proof.”  Something unimaginable had happened: high-speed Internet access in one of India’s most difficult physical geographies. Dharamsala has also become one of India's interesting information networks and has a burgeoning, unlikely 'tech scene’. But is it so unlikely?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since 1959 Dharamsala has been home to the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan people and, government in exile. This single, significant incident possibly set in motion a number of factors that made it possible for the mountain-town to become a political, global, communications. However, much like the rest of India, the region struggles for human and environmental rights against fractured ideas of 'development'. This essay will draw on archives and interviews to unpack this microcosmic tale of Internet access, its histories and economics and the factors at play in shaping it - mundane and maverick, familiar and outlier.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Maitrayee Deka - 'WhatsApp Economy'&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Everyone around us is connected to the Internet through some or other electronic devices, phones, laptops, and tablets. However, not everyone use Internet for the same purpose. Through an ethnographic account of the usage of WhatsApp messages by the traders in three electronic bazaars in Delhi, Palika Bazaar, Nehru Place and Lajpat Rai Market, we see how Internet on the phone is used predominantly for business purpose. The paper seeks to examine how Whatsapp messages, which are for most of the users a medium for social communication, for the traders in Delhi, become a mode to establish business contact with their counterparts in China. From sharing of pictures of new tools to quoting prices of different products, Whatsapp messages become the lifeline of what many has termed as ‘globalization from below’. This paper argues what has started as economic exchanges through Whatsapp messages may start a new political alliance of similar mass markets in Asia. With the electronic bazaars in Delhi facing stiff competition from formal business actors both online and offline, the WhatsApp messages that is a space of new innovations and trade alliances could sustain the mass markets in India.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Purbasha Auddy - 'Citizens and their Internet'&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Suddenly it seems internet data package on mobile phones is the reply to the problems in India. As mobile phones remain with us most of the time, it is as if we are ready to face the world if our mobile phones have a data package. Yes, several television commercials in India are gleefully harping on the notes of knowledge, empowerment and freedom. Moreover, internet is being identified as a virtual institution.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The essay proposes to look into those advertisements which talk about the internet to promote data packages, mobile phones or apps. Through this, the essay firstly, would like to construct the idea of the internet using the Indian citizen who is depicted as smart and almost infallible. Secondly, on the other hand, the essay would analyse how an affirmative and constructive view of using the internet in the minds of citizens has been generated by these advertisements, like the virtual world of the internet can save you from any drastic situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Advertisements are creative constructs, which have a strong aptitude to entice target consumers. While studying the internet in India, studying the ‘texts’ of Indian advertisements which refer to the act of ‘consuming’ the internet could result in an interesting study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Sailen Routray - 'The Many Lives and Sites of Internet in Bhubaneswar'&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Those of us who have jumped or meandered across to the wrong (or perhaps the right) side of thirty by now, first came to consume internet in what were called, and are still called, cyber cafes or internet cafes. Their numbers in big Indian cities is dwindling because of the increasing ubiquity of smartphone, and netbooks and data cards. The cyber café seems to be inexorably headed the way of the STD booth in the geography of large Indian cities. The present paper is a preliminary step towards capturing some of the experience of running and using internet cafes. With ethnographic fieldwork with cyber café owners and internet users in these cafes in the Chandrasekharpur area of Bhubaneswar (where the largest section of the computer industry in the state of Odisha is located), this paper tries to capture experiences that lie at the interstices of ‘objects’ and spaces - experiences that are at the same time a history of the internet as well as a personal history of the city.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Sarah McKeever - 'Quantity over Quality: Social Media and the New Class System in India'&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the humblest mobile phones to the most sophisticated computers, the Internet is everywhere and nowhere in India. The boundaries, the contours of the space remain nebulous and opaque. When engaging with social media in urban India in particular, we are bound to the conventions of corporations which demand quantity over quality creating a new class system of the Internet: those who are “active” – and therefore a “better” user – and those who have seemingly failed to keep up with the demands of the medium, buried in the ever­‐growing noise and chaos. The creation of a new class system on the Internet, based on Western corporate desire for data, has shaped who is seen and heard on the Internet in India.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on fieldwork in New Delhi which examines the impact of the Internet on offline social movements – including the anti corruption movement in 2011 and the Delhi Rape Case in 2012 – I will argue that the study of the Internet in India can reinforce Western corporate conceptions of how to use the Internet properly among various users involved in the movements. By challenging these preconceptions, this essay will engage with issues of Western corporate notions of Internet use and how we engage with and find participants, how we evaluate what is “good” use of the Internet, and the creation of a new class system on the Internet in India.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Smarika Kumar - 'Governing Speech on the Internet: Transforming the Public Sphere through Policymaking'&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the privatised spaces of the World Wide Web and the internet, how does one make sense of speech? Should speech in such a space be understood as the product of a marketplace of ideas? Or should its role in democratic participation be recognised by contextualising the internet as part of the Habermasian public sphere? These questions have interesting implications for the regulation of speech on the internet, as they employ different principles in understanding speech. Recent scholarship has argued for the benefits of employing the public sphere approach to the internet and thus recognising its democratic potential. But taking into account that all speech is inherently made in private spaces on the internet, the application of this
approach is far from simple.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This creates a tension between the marketplace of ideas and the public sphere approaches to speech on the internet in policymaking. I propose to explore how legal and regulatory mechanisms manage these tensions by
creating governance frameworks for the internet: I argue that through the use of policy and regulation, the private marketplace of the internet is sought to be reined in and reconciled to the public sphere, which is mostly represented through legislations governing the internet. I propose that this less-than-perfect reconciliation then manages to modify the very idea of the public sphere itself in the Indian context, by infusing participation of the "other" on the internet through indirect means.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-selected-abstracts'&gt;https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-selected-abstracts&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>sumandro</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Researchers at Work</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Featured</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Studies</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>RAW Blog</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-08-28T06:53:33Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-2016-selected-abstracts">
    <title> Studying Internet in India (2016): Selected Abstracts</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-2016-selected-abstracts</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;We received some great submissions and decided to select twelve abstracts, and not only ten as we planned earlier. Here are the abstracts.&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Abhimanyu Roy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Curious Incidents on Matrimonial Websites in India&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is love? Philosophers have argued over it, biologists have researched it and in the age of the internet, innovators have disrupted it. In the west, dating websites such as OKCupid and eHarmony use all manner of algorithms to find its users their optimal match. In India’s conservative society though, dating is fast-tracked or skipped altogether in favor of marriage. This gives rise to a plethora of matrimonial sites such as Jeevansathi.com and Shaadi.com. This is where things get tricky.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matrimonial websites are different from other internet-enabled services. The gravity of the decision and the major impact that it has on the lives of users brings in pressure and a range of emotions that are not there on casual transactions such as an Uber ride or a foodpanda order. From outright fraud to online harassment newspaper back pages are filled with nightmare stories that begin on a matrimonial website. So much so, that in November of last year, the Indian government decided to set up a panel to regulate matrimonial sites in order to curb abuse. The essay will analyze India’s social stand on marriage, the role of matrimonial websites in modern day India, the problems this awkward amalgamation of the internet and love gives rise to and the steps authorities and matrimonial companies are taking to prevent these issues from occurring.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Anita Gurumurthy, Nandini Chami, and Deepti Bharthur&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Internet as Sutradhar: The Aesthetics and Politics of Digital Age Counter-power&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The open Internet is now a feeble, wannabe, digital age meme. The despots have grabbed it and capitalism has colonised it. But the network that engulfs its users is also a multi-headed organism; the predictables have to make peace with the unpredictables, both arising as they do with the unruly affordances of the network. The much celebrated public domain of open government data, usually meant for geeks and software gurus dedicated to the brave new 'codeful' future, has meant little for marginal subjects of India's development project. Data on government websites have been critiqued worldwide for often being too clunky to catalyse civic use or too obscure to pin down government efficacy. However, as an instrument of accountable governance, data in the public domain can help hold the line, fuelling vanguard action to foster democracy. Activists engaged in the right to food movement in India had reason to rejoice recently when the Supreme Court of India pulled up the central government for delay in release of funds under the MGNREGA scheme and violating the food security law. The series of actions leading to this victory enjoins deeper examination of the MGNREGS website, the design principles of the MIS that generates reports based on the data, and the truth claims that arose in the contingent context marking this struggle. &lt;em&gt;What were the ingredients of this happy irony; the deployment of the master's tools to disband the master's house? What aesthetics and principles made for a public data structure that allowed citizens to hack into state impunity? And what do such practices around the digital tell us about the performativity of the Internet - not as a grand, open, phenomenon for the network to access the multitude, but as the inane, local, Sutradhar (alchemist who produces the narrative), who allows truths to be told?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aishwarya Panicker&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;How Green is the Internet? The Good, the Bad and the Ugly&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Groceries at your doorstep, data on your fingertips, an Uber at the tap of a button and information overload- human negotiations with the internet have definitely changed drastically in the past few decades. Research in the area, too, has transformed to not just the supply of internet to the masses, but has evolved to include innovative and revolutionary ideas in terms of internet infrastructure and governance. With over 3.2 Billion internet users in the world, and over 400 million of these from India, this is no surprise.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, while environmental sustainability remains at the forefront of many-a-government, there is little data / debate / analysis / examination of the environmental impact of the internet. This is true especially for India. In 2011, Joel Gombiner wrote an academic paper on the problem of the Internets carbon footprint, with a premise based on the lesser known fact that the ICT industry has been ‘responsible for two to four percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions’- an area that the Climate Group’s Smart 2020 report had focused on back in 2008 as well. Clearly this is a war on the environment that is yet to receive large-scale attention.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;How can we move beyond particular fascinations with the internet and engage holistically with the internet? By moving towards a dimension of internet infrastructure studies, that has large policy and implementation benefits. This paper, then, will seek to elucidate four central issue areas: first, as the third highest country in terms of internet use, what is the current environmental impact of internet usage in India? Second, are there any regulatory provisions that give prescriptive measures to data centres and providers?  Third, do any global standards
exist in this regard and finally, what future steps can be taken (by the government, civil society
and individuals) to address this?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deepak Prince&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the most important effects of increasing internet connectivity coupled with universal electronic display screens, multimedia digital objects and supple graphic interfaces, is the proliferation of systems of enunciation. The business letter, typewriter, electric telegraph and radio, each in its own time, transformed how humans make sense in different forms of writing. Some of these survive to this day (forms of address from letters, the abbreviations and ‘cablese’ from telegraph operators etc). Now, we find new spaces of networked sociality emerging at rapid speeds, and everyday, we forget many others that are now outdated, no longer ‘supported’ or desired. How does one study this supple flow of discourse? Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of tracing collective assemblages of enunciation (the structuring structures of discourse) and Gilbert Simondon’s Law of relaxation (where technical elements created by complex ensembles are released into a path of technological evolution where they may or may not crystallize the formation of new ensembles) are two philosophical notions that seek to address this problem. The anthropologist Ilana Gershon suggests that new social media platforms like Facebook have a detrimental effect on sociality because they impose a neo-liberal notion of personhood on its users, through the interface. I take this as my point of departure, and based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted at a new media marketing agency, I attempt to draw out how ‘posting’ is modulated on facebook, about how subjectivity is configured within the complex matrix comprising a constant flow of posts, the economy of ‘liking’, algorithmic sorting and affects that do not cross the threshold of the screen.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Maitrayee Mukerji&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By some latest estimates, around 35% of the population access the Internet in India using multiple devices. As Indians browse, search, transact and interact online, one can observe the increasing intertwining of the Internet in their everyday lives. But, how much do we know about the influence and impact of the Internet on Indian and in India? Advances in big data technologies provide an exciting opportunity for social science researchers to study the Internet. So, trends can be detected, opinions and sentiments can be calibrated, social networks can be discovered by using technologies for collecting and mining data on people online. But are social science researchers in India equipped enough to do a rigorous and detailed study of the India? Leaving aside debates on epistemology, ontology and methodology of researching Internet using big data analytics, the very first challenge is
limited access to data. A cursory scan of the available research would indicate that the data – tweets, trends, comments, memes etc. have generally been collected manually. The bulk of the data is collected by private companies and available either at a price or by writing programs to access them through APIs. The latter allows only limited extraction of data and more often than not has a learning curve. Access to raw data, through institutional repositories or special permission, if available is only to select few. Legal and ethical issues arise if one considers scrapping websites for data. The essay is an attempt to articulate the challenges in accessing data while making attempts to study the Internet using big data analytics.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Muhammed Afzal P&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Internet Memes as Effective Means of Social and Political Criticism&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By looking at the user-generated memes posted from the Malayalam Facebook pages “Troll Malayalam” and “International Chalu Union”, this essay argues that political memes function as effective means of social and political criticism in Kerala. In a society where conversations often tend to feature examples from popular films, memes from these pages use images from popular culture including television to respond to current affairs as well as contemporary social and political questions. Often described mistakenly as 'trolls' by the practitioners themselves, a major portion of the memes have a progressive content in terms of discussing questions related to religion, sexuality, nationalism, etc. It won’t be an exaggeration to state that many Malayalis see these memes as instant 'news analysis' of current affairs.  The argument of this essay will be advanced through an analysis of the memes that were produced in relation to contemporary socio-political and cultural questions such as beef ban, the rise of right-wing politics in Kerala, the question of religious conservatism, etc. Through this the essay seeks to investigate how internet memes creatively contribute to social movements and also to see how critical questions in cultural criticism are translated into "the popular.'&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dr. Ravikant Kisana&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Archetyping the 'Launda' Humor on the Desi Internet&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Humor on the internet has proven a massive social unifying force for young, upper class Indian millennials. The humor is not just consumed via Western (mainly US) humor collectives such as 9GAG, Cracked, etc - the proliferation of 'Indian' humor pages on the Facebook and the countless YouTube comedy channels is testament to the localisation of this content. However, the humor which is seen as a unifying force is largely 'launda' aka. 'heteronormative-upper caste-male' in its sensibilities. Comedy collectives like TVF, with its popular channel 'Q-tiyapa' had to create a separate handle 'Girliyapa' to cater to feminist themes. The idea is that humor by default is male, and 'feminist humor' needs a separate space.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This essay seeks to study the 'launda'-cultural attributes of online Indian humor. It will seek to document and wean archetypes of comedy tropes which fit this mode. The area of the documentation will be YouTube comedy channels and Facebook humor pages—however, the same can be extended to Twitter handles and the suchlike.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Siddharth Rao and Kiran Kumar&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Chota Recharge and the Chota Internet&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Uniform ​and affordable Internet is emerging as one of the fundamental civil rights in developing countries. However in India, the connectivity is far from uniform across the regions, where the disparity is evident in the infrastructure, the cost of access and telecommunication services to provide Internet facilities among different economic classes. In spite of having a large mobile user base, the mobile Internet are still remarkably slower in some of the developing  countries. Especially in India, it falls below 50% even in comparison with the performance of its  developing counterparts!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This essay presents a study of connectivity and performance trends based on an exploratory analysis of mobile Internet measurement data from India. In order to assess the state of mobile networks and its readiness in adopting the different mobile standards (2G, 3G, and 4G) for commercial use, we discuss the spread, penetration, interoperability and the congestion trends.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on our analysis, we argue that the network operators have taken negligible measures to scale the mobile Internet. Affordable Internet is definitely for everyone. But, the affordability of the Internet in terms of cost  
does not necessarily imply the rightful access to Internet services. Chota recharge is possibly leading us to chota (shrunken) Internet!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Smarika Kumar&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Why Mythologies are Crucial to Understand Governance on the Internet: The Case of Online Maps&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;How does one study internet in India? This essay proposes to provide one possible answer to this question through its central argument that internet, like other technologies, is very much a part of a “mythological” or “fictional” narrative of the history of this country, and without an understanding of these mythologies, the development of internet governance in the country cannot be hoped to be understood. This central argument is traced in the essay through the debates and discussions on law and policymaking around online maps. The essay, in its first part, explores what a “mythological” account of the history of India might mean, and what role technological developments play in it. It does so by tracing the narrative of mapmaking in medieval India and its deep ties with magic, secrecy and mythical stories. It then surveys how modern mapping surveys in the colonial period interacted with the idea of the “native”, and argues that such interactions created a dichotomy between “native” sciences, folklore on the one hand, and colonial achievements, national security on the other. It argues that it is this latter strand of a certain “national security” vision of technology which found dominant voice in the regulation
of maps in India post-independence, yet the sense of the unknown, mystical, or “mythological” in such technological deployment as mapmaking requires, survived. The essay finally uses such evidence to trace how even in online
interactions, and internet governance design in India- this aspect of the mystical and the fear of it often sustains, driven by a (repressed?) memory of mythology, through the use of analogies. And it is within this twilight
zone, within this frontier between “mythology” and nation-building, that a governance design for online maps is being presently constructed in India. The essay then argues that it becomes crucial to understand such mythologies around technology generally and internet specifically and the manner they interact with law and policymaking in order to really get a sense of a 21st century India’s experience of the internet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sujeet George&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Understanding Reddit: The Indian Context&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even as social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter seek to carve a niche within the Indian social media landscape, the presence and impact of news aggregator website reddit seems relatively unnoticed. Known for its excessive self­-referentiality and inability to emerge from a restricted pool of informational flow, reddit nevertheless has come to be a major focal point of convergence of news and public opinion, especially in the United States. The web interface, which allows for users with overlapping interests to converge under a common platform namely the “subreddit,” allows the possibility of understanding questions of user taste and the directions in which information and user attention flow.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This paper seeks to offer a preliminary gesture towards understanding reddit’s usage and breadth in the Indian context. Through an analysis of the “India” subreddit and examining the manner and context in which information and ideas are shared, proposed, and debunked, the paper aspires to formulate a methodology for interrogating sites like reddit that offer the possibilities of social mediation, even as users maintain a limited amount of privacy. At the 
same time, to what extent can such news aggregator sites direct the ways in which opinions and news flows change course as a true marker of information generation responding to user inputs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Supratim Pal&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;India, being a multilingual country, owes a lot to the Internet for adding words to the vocabulary of everyday use in different languages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This paper would critically examine how Net words like "selfie", "wall", "profile" and others have changed the way Indians write or talk. For example, a word like "nijaswi" was not there in Bengali language five years back but is used across several platforms as a translation of "selfie".&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On one hand, computer-mediated communication (CMC) has helped us to express in short messages and on the other, we all have picked up use of punctuation marks like colon or a semicolon to express our emotion - which have got another name, "emoticons".&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The paper would be more practical in approach than theoretical. For example, it would feature chat (another example of CMC) conversations 10 years ago when hardly an emoticon was used, and that of today's when we cannot think of a chat without a "smiley" or a "sticker". Even the linguist, David Crystal, probably could not have thought that in 15 years, the language (not just lingua franca, English) would change worldwide since he first tried to theorize Internet language in 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Today, a linguist need not to have a proper publication to introduce a word in any language but Netizens can re-invent words like "troll" or "roast" to criticize one or "superlike" to celebrate an achievement or even "unfriend" someone to just relax.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Surfatial&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Surfatial is a trans-local collective that operates through the internet. We use conversations to aid learning outside established structures. We are concerned with enabling disinhibition through the internet, for expressing
what may not be feasible in physical reality. What role does partial or complete anonymity play in this process of seeking “safe” zones of expression? Fake profiles on social media offer such zones, while perhaps also operating to propagate, mislead or troll.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Our essay would argue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;That there is a desire to participate in speculative fora in the Indian cultural context and the internet has created space for philosophical questioning among contemporary Indian participants which can develop further, despite common assertions that online spaces are largely uncivil and abusive.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;That anonymous and pseudonymous content production offers a method for exploring and expressing with a certain degree of freedom.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Spam-like methods used in sub-cultural outreach efforts on social media have proved effective in puncturing filter bubbles.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Our essay would be drawn from experiments via Surfatial’s online engagement platforms (Surfatial’s Study groups and post_writer project) to examine:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;Extent of participation.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Disinhibition facilitation and dialoguing.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Reach.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Emergence and development of ideas.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Creating an archive of internet activity and re-processing it into new forms of presentation.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-2016-selected-abstracts'&gt;https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-2016-selected-abstracts&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>sumandro</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Researchers at Work</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Featured</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Studies</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>RAW Blog</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2016-07-06T06:24:42Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>




</rdf:RDF>
