14 ms·

India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen User Content

81 points by narad 15y ago

tejaswiy 15y ago
Just. Wow. Mind boggling amounts of stupidity. "In the second meeting with the same executives in late November, Mr. Sibal told them that he expected them to use human beings to screen content, not technology, the executive said. The three executives said Mr. Sibal has told these companies that he expects them to set up a proactive prescreening system, with staffers looking for objectionable content and deleting it before it is posted."
- tomjen3 15y ago
  It is funny how much people who don't contribute to the world think they get to tell other people what to do.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    Lamar Smith, one of the sponsors of SOPA, told Google something similar. That it should be possible for Google to hire some high-school kids to keep piracy under control on their search engine.
  - brettnak 15y ago
    I agree. As much as I disagree with Ayn Rand on some things, she certainly disliked uselessness as much as I do. I can't help but wonder if certain aspects of her future's government in Atlas Shrugged is the natural end stage of a government.
    - tomjen3 15y ago
      You don't have to be a fan of miss rand to believe that politicians shouldn't live high while the people who make their food suffer.
    - teja1990 15y ago
      I wish if Google and FB said, " Sorry Sibal we don't censor results , if u insist we would leave!" Though its not viable , it will scare the politicians.
- kijin 15y ago
  Maybe they actually think it's realistic to hire a couple of million people to screen online content. After all, they have more than a billion people, and they also have extensive experience with their outsourced call centers.
  - pork 15y ago
    You do realize that not all of India, especially its politicians, are involved in call center activities, correct? I hope you also realize that life in India doesn't revolve around call centers, even though that's the most contact with India many westerners have.
    - kijin 15y ago
      Of course I understand that call centers make up only a tiny part of the Indian economy. But I can certainly imagine these politicians thinking, "Wouldn't it be really easy for Google and Facebook to hire a few thousand people here in India (who know the language, culture, etc.) to monitor the web in real time?" Hiring human censors would be completely unrealistic in countries like the United States, but maybe it doesn't sound so far-fetched in countries with low wages and a large population.
      - movingahead 15y ago
        Do you understand that a country with a large population will also have a large amount of user-generated content? It is not people with low wages, but court of law which should have the power to decide what content is inflammatory. The meaning of freedom and democracy doesn't vary with amount of population.
        kijin 15y ago
        > It is not people with low wages, but court of law which should have the power to decide what content is inflammatory I completely agree with you. It's Mr. Sibal who seems to think that human censors are not only a good idea but also realistic.
- jimbobimbo 15y ago
  Oh, so they are simply working on fixing unemployment problem in India! :)
tomcreighton 15y ago
I'd like it if the companies asked to do this just pulled out of the country altogether. "Can't deal with the fundamental nature of the internet? No internet, then." It's needlessly vindictive on my part, but we've seen this story play out again and again. That's not how it works!
- dontblink 15y ago
  The problem with what you suggest (ignoring the vindictiveness), is that the people pushing for these asinine rules would benefit from the consequences of the loss of the internet while the masses would instead be harmed. What I'd like to see is thorough background investigations of the people who are pushing for these stupid laws be made very very public, such that they are properly exposed as frauds and sycophants.
threepointone 15y ago
Ridiculous - "At the meeting, Mr. Sibal showed attendees a Facebook page that maligned the Congress Party’s president, Sonia Gandhi. “This is unacceptable,” he told attendees, the executive said, and he asked them to find a way to monitor what is posted on their sites." I'm not allowed to criticize my government in a public forum? Pardon my language, but this is fucking ridiculous.
- yalogin 15y ago
  Haa. Sonia Gandhi is not technically part of the government. But of course she is more powerful than the government.
  - bishnu 15y ago
    What? She is an elected member of parliament. She is in every way a part of the government. Her role is not reflective of the power she yields but that is a separate issue.
    - movingahead 15y ago
      An elected member of parliament is not a member of government in India, and I guess, everywhere else. Legislature and executive are two separate parts of a democracy.
- kijin 15y ago
  > Mr. Sibal > fucking ridiculous. "Sibal" actually means "fucking" in Korean. Coincidence?
  - teja1990 15y ago
    I wish he knew that ;)
suprgeek 15y ago
Not an unusual request considering the utter cluelessness and Sycophantic bootlicking of the people involved. Consider that the perceived slight is to the defacto head of India - Sonia Gandhi (a person with terrifying power but Zero accountability, completely outside the Govt.) this is being held up as the reason to institute an Orwellian nightmare of Censorship. A reasonable response is FU in nice terms. [EDIT - minor spelling]
- bishnu 15y ago
  Sonia Gandhi is an MP, she is not "completely outside the government". A few people have said this now, where is this talk coming from?
  - sushantsharma 15y ago
    Right, she is an MP that has more power than the PM.
  - anonInd 15y ago
    The misinformation comes from the RSS propaganda machine. Irony, they are way too active on FB. edit: missed a word
    - dman 15y ago
      Source?
madrik 15y ago
What is this? Watch your speech, because Big Sib has installed the Netpolice; that which does not ingratiate itself to the fancies of the power-mongers shall be expunged. No service provider should bear, or provide any means to further, this idiocy.
shareme 15y ago
Why is Indian govt afraid of its own citizens words?
- threepointone 15y ago
  There is a cultural angle to this - Indian politicians (and even lots of jingoistic citizens) take insults to their honour/culture waaaay too seriously. That, and they're troglodytes who don't understand the Internet.
  - yardie 15y ago
    This I don't understand. Most of the Chinese and Indian politicians have STEM backgrounds. In theory, they are supposed to be very smart and critical thinkers. I find it hard to believe that someone that believes in the theory of evolution and the laws of thermodynamics doesn't have the same regard for freedom of expression or the cost of the human life.
    - yalogin 15y ago
      Can you explain what STEM background means? Most politicians in India are uneducated. Of course the ones at the national level are educated but by and large they are think only save their seats and get reelected, nothing beyond that.
      - drivingmenuts 15y ago
        Science, Technology, Engineering, Math. Having a STEM background doesn't mean they aren't pig ignorant, it just means ... Well, to be honest, it probably doesn't mean anything other than they were capable of passing a test.
    - jaipilot747 15y ago
      Where did you get this glorious idea from, about Indian politicians? Half of the parliament probably never finished high school.
amritsharma 15y ago
"A man who answered the phone in Mr. Rai’s office said he did not talk to the press and hung up when a reporter asked for a press contact." Wow.
rohit89 15y ago
I'm constantly amazed at the cluelessness shown by officials. Sometimes I wonder if they're doing it just to troll us...
eCa 15y ago
This is what you get when you seriously consider making SOPA into law: "If you can get companies to strangle funds and kidnap domains of people saying that, can't you not also make this disappear?"
tathagata 15y ago
Holy cow!!
ajays 15y ago
Have the Indian politicians learnt nothing from the events unfolding in the Middle-East this entire year? Or could it be that they _have_ seen the power of the 'net, and are scared? This (defamatory pages) could just be a ruse to assert control over the 'net, to prevent an Indian Jasmine Revolution.
- nekojima 15y ago
  An 'Indian Jasmine Revolution' is highly unlikely in India because there are at least the relatively free-and-fair elections that are/were completely absent in Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Yemen.... There might be massive corruption in the main parties, nationally, regionally and locally, but there is at least something of a choice and a possible release for the pressure-valve of public opinion.
sdqali 15y ago
Yet another brainless move from the Congress party. I hope Facebook, Google and Microsoft stand up and refuse to cooperate with the government.
jezclaremurugan 15y ago
Freedom of speech was the one advantage we had over other developing countries. I guess the Indian Gov was scared by the support the anti corruption movement got online.
ww520 15y ago
Would Google pull out of India because of this?
- FameofLight 15y ago
  No, they will never. Because its executive function to ask many things, but we have fairly independent judiciary that take of these non-sense things by executives.
prayag 15y ago
Ok, I will play the devil's advocate here because someone has to. This has been going on since the pre-internet era. India unlike the US and like the UK doesn't have unlimited free speech and have fairly strong defamation and libel laws. This was a rich man's problem because how would you defame someone unless you have access to printing press or can go on radio and television. The internet changed all that. The government doesn't want it to change (for obvious reasons), hence all this hoopla. Of course the free speech will win because it's almost impossible to censor the internet but the people in power will not go down without a fight.
- bad_user 15y ago
  In case you are trying to give justifications for these requests because this has been going on since the pre-internet era, then don't - freedom of speech should be a fundamental right of all people.
  - prayag 15y ago
    I am justifying anything. I am telling it how it. People in the US think of freedom of speech as a fundamental right which it should be. This is not the case with most other countries. It's the same as people in other countries thinking that universal healthcare should be a fundamental right, many people in the US don't agree. I personally am in favor of both being fundamental rights.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      I'm NOT from the US, I'm from an ex-Communist Eastern Europe country. Universal healthcare involves government spending. We do have it were I live, however it's not working out because of a lack of funds. So the medical personnel takes bribery to do their job, otherwise receiving proper care is like winning the lottery. IMHO, universal healthcare is nice to have, however it's not on the same level as freedom of speech. Nothing else is as important as freedom of speech. Why? Because by having freedom of speech, then the people can make informed decisions regarding their future and the future of their children. And only by having freedom of speech you can then hope for a corruption-free government, that maybe will give you proper universal healthcare when they'll be able to afford it.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
lisperforlife 15y ago
Sibal is an idiot. Nobody in India takes him seriously. When he is not busy kissing sonia and rahul's ass, he talks from his own.
- prayag 15y ago
  I disagree. I think Sibal is one of the smarter and honest guy in the government. I do think people take him seriously. He is the person behind the $35 tablet, he is moving the country from an absolute points based system of grading to relative grade based system and is opening up more IITs. He has risen among the ranks in the government to Human Resources and Education Minister. You might not agree with what he does but I don't think you can take him trivially.
  - Lawliet_Kira 15y ago
    Yes,I agree. The way he has managed his sector is brilliant.Last month I went to 'panchayat samiti' at taluka level and shocked to see that people were using UNIX and tablet Pc for their daily work.They sure have come long way.
  - lisperforlife 15y ago
    May be he is smarter than the other utter idiots around him but he is still an idiot nevertheless. https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23IdiotKapilSibal https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23IdiotKapilSibal
jjcm 15y ago
This seems to be a fairly reoccurring theme - countries requesting internet sites to mass censor user content. Rarely though do they understand the scale of what that means. In the article, it stated that they wanted each item to be screened by a human. In the same way that I'll quote a client a much larger price if they want IE6 support, I often don't see why these companies don't just quote the country a price for the manpower required to do this. Kind of a, "Listen, pay us X per year to hire people to do this. Otherwise, it's simply impossible for us to do, and we'll fight your request in court til the end of time." While I doubt any country would actually pay, I think it would serve to at least educate the politicians as to how much work censoring the internet actually requires.
- bad_user 15y ago
  The request itself may be clueless, however you can easily mass censor content that contains certain keywords. It can get pretty effective too, as is the case with spam filtering. You could even detect the tone of the article - if it's a positive or a negative one. Plus you can hellban the users too and they won't notice the censorship until much later. So I don't get what a discussion of costs will bring, as there's always a cheaper way. Freedom of speech is the issue here, not cost.
  - nekojima 15y ago
    "The request itself may be clueless, however you can easily mass censor content that contains certain keywords." Then you get ridiculous situations for mass banned keywords like recently in Pakistan or for a long time in China, most recently 'jasmine tea' was banned. China arguably has the most 'sophisticated' censorship system in the world, with over a million staff policing internet content & developing systems to monitor content, but it is still noticeable to users. So your theory that it can be implemented without notice is largely false. Its also quite easy to get around most keywords by using slang or alternatives for political leaders, such as 'The Old Man' (usually negative) for Robert Mugabe, 'Mr Bow Tie' (sarcastic, negative) for HK CE Donald Tsang or 'The Lady' (positive) for Aung San Suu Kyi. Using single initials is also popular. I've lived in several dictatorships & the ingenuity of anti-censorship can be quite simple to overcome complex systems.
teja1990 15y ago
Someone please remind Mr.Sibal that India is a democracy , one of the largest of its kind!!

81 points by narad 15y ago

Just. Wow. Mind boggling amounts of stupidity. "In the second meeting with the same executives in late November, Mr. Sibal told them that he expected them to use human beings to screen content, not technology, the executive said. The three executives said Mr. Sibal has told these companies that he expects them to set up a proactive prescreening system, with staffers looking for objectionable content and deleting it before it is posted."

tomjen3 15y ago
It is funny how much people who don't contribute to the world think they get to tell other people what to do.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Lamar Smith, one of the sponsors of SOPA, told Google something similar. That it should be possible for Google to hire some high-school kids to keep piracy under control on their search engine.
- brettnak 15y ago
  I agree. As much as I disagree with Ayn Rand on some things, she certainly disliked uselessness as much as I do. I can't help but wonder if certain aspects of her future's government in Atlas Shrugged is the natural end stage of a government.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    You don't have to be a fan of miss rand to believe that politicians shouldn't live high while the people who make their food suffer.
  - teja1990 15y ago
    I wish if Google and FB said, " Sorry Sibal we don't censor results , if u insist we would leave!" Though its not viable , it will scare the politicians.
kijin 15y ago
Maybe they actually think it's realistic to hire a couple of million people to screen online content. After all, they have more than a billion people, and they also have extensive experience with their outsourced call centers.
- pork 15y ago
  You do realize that not all of India, especially its politicians, are involved in call center activities, correct? I hope you also realize that life in India doesn't revolve around call centers, even though that's the most contact with India many westerners have.
  - kijin 15y ago
    Of course I understand that call centers make up only a tiny part of the Indian economy. But I can certainly imagine these politicians thinking, "Wouldn't it be really easy for Google and Facebook to hire a few thousand people here in India (who know the language, culture, etc.) to monitor the web in real time?" Hiring human censors would be completely unrealistic in countries like the United States, but maybe it doesn't sound so far-fetched in countries with low wages and a large population.
    - movingahead 15y ago
      Do you understand that a country with a large population will also have a large amount of user-generated content? It is not people with low wages, but court of law which should have the power to decide what content is inflammatory. The meaning of freedom and democracy doesn't vary with amount of population.
      - kijin 15y ago
        > It is not people with low wages, but court of law which should have the power to decide what content is inflammatory I completely agree with you. It's Mr. Sibal who seems to think that human censors are not only a good idea but also realistic.
jimbobimbo 15y ago
Oh, so they are simply working on fixing unemployment problem in India! :)

tomcreighton 15y ago

I'd like it if the companies asked to do this just pulled out of the country altogether. "Can't deal with the fundamental nature of the internet? No internet, then." It's needlessly vindictive on my part, but we've seen this story play out again and again. That's not how it works!

dontblink 15y ago
The problem with what you suggest (ignoring the vindictiveness), is that the people pushing for these asinine rules would benefit from the consequences of the loss of the internet while the masses would instead be harmed. What I'd like to see is thorough background investigations of the people who are pushing for these stupid laws be made very very public, such that they are properly exposed as frauds and sycophants.

threepointone 15y ago

Ridiculous - "At the meeting, Mr. Sibal showed attendees a Facebook page that maligned the Congress Party’s president, Sonia Gandhi. “This is unacceptable,” he told attendees, the executive said, and he asked them to find a way to monitor what is posted on their sites." I'm not allowed to criticize my government in a public forum? Pardon my language, but this is fucking ridiculous.

yalogin 15y ago
Haa. Sonia Gandhi is not technically part of the government. But of course she is more powerful than the government.
- bishnu 15y ago
  What? She is an elected member of parliament. She is in every way a part of the government. Her role is not reflective of the power she yields but that is a separate issue.
  - movingahead 15y ago
    An elected member of parliament is not a member of government in India, and I guess, everywhere else. Legislature and executive are two separate parts of a democracy.
kijin 15y ago
> Mr. Sibal > fucking ridiculous. "Sibal" actually means "fucking" in Korean. Coincidence?
- teja1990 15y ago
  I wish he knew that ;)

suprgeek 15y ago

Not an unusual request considering the utter cluelessness and Sycophantic bootlicking of the people involved. Consider that the perceived slight is to the defacto head of India - Sonia Gandhi (a person with terrifying power but Zero accountability, completely outside the Govt.) this is being held up as the reason to institute an Orwellian nightmare of Censorship. A reasonable response is FU in nice terms. [EDIT - minor spelling]

bishnu 15y ago
Sonia Gandhi is an MP, she is not "completely outside the government". A few people have said this now, where is this talk coming from?
- sushantsharma 15y ago
  Right, she is an MP that has more power than the PM.
- anonInd 15y ago
  The misinformation comes from the RSS propaganda machine. Irony, they are way too active on FB. edit: missed a word
  - dman 15y ago
    Source?

madrik 15y ago

What is this? Watch your speech, because Big Sib has installed the Netpolice; that which does not ingratiate itself to the fancies of the power-mongers shall be expunged. No service provider should bear, or provide any means to further, this idiocy.

shareme 15y ago

Why is Indian govt afraid of its own citizens words?

threepointone 15y ago
There is a cultural angle to this - Indian politicians (and even lots of jingoistic citizens) take insults to their honour/culture waaaay too seriously. That, and they're troglodytes who don't understand the Internet.
- yardie 15y ago
  This I don't understand. Most of the Chinese and Indian politicians have STEM backgrounds. In theory, they are supposed to be very smart and critical thinkers. I find it hard to believe that someone that believes in the theory of evolution and the laws of thermodynamics doesn't have the same regard for freedom of expression or the cost of the human life.
  - yalogin 15y ago
    Can you explain what STEM background means? Most politicians in India are uneducated. Of course the ones at the national level are educated but by and large they are think only save their seats and get reelected, nothing beyond that.
    - drivingmenuts 15y ago
      Science, Technology, Engineering, Math. Having a STEM background doesn't mean they aren't pig ignorant, it just means ... Well, to be honest, it probably doesn't mean anything other than they were capable of passing a test.
  - jaipilot747 15y ago
    Where did you get this glorious idea from, about Indian politicians? Half of the parliament probably never finished high school.

amritsharma 15y ago

"A man who answered the phone in Mr. Rai’s office said he did not talk to the press and hung up when a reporter asked for a press contact." Wow.

rohit89 15y ago

I'm constantly amazed at the cluelessness shown by officials. Sometimes I wonder if they're doing it just to troll us...

eCa 15y ago

This is what you get when you seriously consider making SOPA into law: "If you can get companies to strangle funds and kidnap domains of people saying that, can't you not also make this disappear?"

tathagata 15y ago

Holy cow!!

ajays 15y ago

Have the Indian politicians learnt nothing from the events unfolding in the Middle-East this entire year? Or could it be that they _have_ seen the power of the 'net, and are scared? This (defamatory pages) could just be a ruse to assert control over the 'net, to prevent an Indian Jasmine Revolution.

nekojima 15y ago
An 'Indian Jasmine Revolution' is highly unlikely in India because there are at least the relatively free-and-fair elections that are/were completely absent in Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Yemen.... There might be massive corruption in the main parties, nationally, regionally and locally, but there is at least something of a choice and a possible release for the pressure-valve of public opinion.

sdqali 15y ago

Yet another brainless move from the Congress party. I hope Facebook, Google and Microsoft stand up and refuse to cooperate with the government.

jezclaremurugan 15y ago

Freedom of speech was the one advantage we had over other developing countries. I guess the Indian Gov was scared by the support the anti corruption movement got online.

ww520 15y ago

Would Google pull out of India because of this?

FameofLight 15y ago
No, they will never. Because its executive function to ask many things, but we have fairly independent judiciary that take of these non-sense things by executives.

prayag 15y ago

Ok, I will play the devil's advocate here because someone has to. This has been going on since the pre-internet era. India unlike the US and like the UK doesn't have unlimited free speech and have fairly strong defamation and libel laws. This was a rich man's problem because how would you defame someone unless you have access to printing press or can go on radio and television. The internet changed all that. The government doesn't want it to change (for obvious reasons), hence all this hoopla. Of course the free speech will win because it's almost impossible to censor the internet but the people in power will not go down without a fight.

bad_user 15y ago
In case you are trying to give justifications for these requests because this has been going on since the pre-internet era, then don't - freedom of speech should be a fundamental right of all people.
- prayag 15y ago
  I am justifying anything. I am telling it how it. People in the US think of freedom of speech as a fundamental right which it should be. This is not the case with most other countries. It's the same as people in other countries thinking that universal healthcare should be a fundamental right, many people in the US don't agree. I personally am in favor of both being fundamental rights.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    I'm NOT from the US, I'm from an ex-Communist Eastern Europe country. Universal healthcare involves government spending. We do have it were I live, however it's not working out because of a lack of funds. So the medical personnel takes bribery to do their job, otherwise receiving proper care is like winning the lottery. IMHO, universal healthcare is nice to have, however it's not on the same level as freedom of speech. Nothing else is as important as freedom of speech. Why? Because by having freedom of speech, then the people can make informed decisions regarding their future and the future of their children. And only by having freedom of speech you can then hope for a corruption-free government, that maybe will give you proper universal healthcare when they'll be able to afford it.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

lisperforlife 15y ago

Sibal is an idiot. Nobody in India takes him seriously. When he is not busy kissing sonia and rahul's ass, he talks from his own.

prayag 15y ago
I disagree. I think Sibal is one of the smarter and honest guy in the government. I do think people take him seriously. He is the person behind the $35 tablet, he is moving the country from an absolute points based system of grading to relative grade based system and is opening up more IITs. He has risen among the ranks in the government to Human Resources and Education Minister. You might not agree with what he does but I don't think you can take him trivially.
- Lawliet_Kira 15y ago
  Yes,I agree. The way he has managed his sector is brilliant.Last month I went to 'panchayat samiti' at taluka level and shocked to see that people were using UNIX and tablet Pc for their daily work.They sure have come long way.
- lisperforlife 15y ago
  May be he is smarter than the other utter idiots around him but he is still an idiot nevertheless. https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23IdiotKapilSibal https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23IdiotKapilSibal

jjcm 15y ago

This seems to be a fairly reoccurring theme - countries requesting internet sites to mass censor user content. Rarely though do they understand the scale of what that means. In the article, it stated that they wanted each item to be screened by a human. In the same way that I'll quote a client a much larger price if they want IE6 support, I often don't see why these companies don't just quote the country a price for the manpower required to do this. Kind of a, "Listen, pay us X per year to hire people to do this. Otherwise, it's simply impossible for us to do, and we'll fight your request in court til the end of time." While I doubt any country would actually pay, I think it would serve to at least educate the politicians as to how much work censoring the internet actually requires.

bad_user 15y ago
The request itself may be clueless, however you can easily mass censor content that contains certain keywords. It can get pretty effective too, as is the case with spam filtering. You could even detect the tone of the article - if it's a positive or a negative one. Plus you can hellban the users too and they won't notice the censorship until much later. So I don't get what a discussion of costs will bring, as there's always a cheaper way. Freedom of speech is the issue here, not cost.
- nekojima 15y ago
  "The request itself may be clueless, however you can easily mass censor content that contains certain keywords." Then you get ridiculous situations for mass banned keywords like recently in Pakistan or for a long time in China, most recently 'jasmine tea' was banned. China arguably has the most 'sophisticated' censorship system in the world, with over a million staff policing internet content & developing systems to monitor content, but it is still noticeable to users. So your theory that it can be implemented without notice is largely false. Its also quite easy to get around most keywords by using slang or alternatives for political leaders, such as 'The Old Man' (usually negative) for Robert Mugabe, 'Mr Bow Tie' (sarcastic, negative) for HK CE Donald Tsang or 'The Lady' (positive) for Aung San Suu Kyi. Using single initials is also popular. I've lived in several dictatorships & the ingenuity of anti-censorship can be quite simple to overcome complex systems.

teja1990 15y ago

Someone please remind Mr.Sibal that India is a democracy , one of the largest of its kind!!