Differences in law, culture explain Twitter's US 'bias', experts say

Actors, activists, and authors have accused Twitter of having a pro-government stance in India compared to the US, where it recently deplatformed former President Donald Trump for spreading misinformation that led his supporters to storm the Capitol just days before his term ended.

In India, Twitter came in for huge criticism on Monday after it blocked over 200 accounts and tweets, including those of journalists and a media organisation, at the government’s request. The accounts and tweets were all linked to the ongoing protests by farmers. The blocked accounts have since been restored.

Experts said the apparent disparity in treatment between India and US could be explained by differences between US and Indian laws, which result in a much higher standard for free expression in the US.

“The United States has much stronger laws protecting freedom of expression for individuals and also protecting private companies from government censorship and control,” said Audrey Truschke, associate professor of South Asian history at Rutgers University, Newark.





In India, by contrast, the government relies on the Information Technology Act to issue withholding requests, ban applications such as We Transfer, websites such as DuckDuckGo, and control the flow of information on the internet without public knowledge, said Apar Gupta, executive director of digital rights advocacy organisation, International Freedom Foundation (IFF).

Gupta said Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which the government invoked on Monday, prevents intermediaries like Twitter from disclosing any information about blocking of an account or tweet to the public.

This confidentiality clause “creates a bizarre situation where citizens have the right to challenge blocking of online content but they are unable to do so because they don't have access to these legal orders,” IFF wrote in a thread on Twitter.


It said that while the government claims the clause is needed to protect complainants and whistleblowers, it hasn't explained why blocking orders can’t be provided after redacting any personal details.

Beyond the law, Gupta says, the difference in approach also has to do with the institutional culture built over time in India as opposed to the US, where offending sentiments of a group does not lead to a criminal complaint. A famous 1989 ruling by the US Supreme Court protects the burning of the US flag - considered offensive by many - as a type of protected free speech under the First Amendment.


While India’s Constitution also protects free expression, the government can overturn these using the ‘reasonable restrictions’ clause “in the interests the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.

There is also the matter of cultural differences between the two countries. “We quite often see that if people are offended by something (in India), there is a way that a police complaint can be filed or a court case can be initiated,” Gupta said. “Whereas in the US, that division and that boundary between social ‘offence’ and legal prosecution is much better and well defined.” IFF is currently challenging the confidentiality requirement in the Delhi High Court.

Truschke, however, feels that the charge of preferential treatment to US citizens can’t be ignored. “One wonders if, as a US-based company, Twitter's leadership might just care a little bit less about democracy and justice for Indians versus at home,” she said.