Only news that is false will be labelled fake, he said when asked about checks and balances that prevent the unit from labelling any news critical of the government as fake.
Social media platforms cannot hide behind Section 79 safe harbour rules, the minister said.
“If a social media platform wants to play arbiter of the truth and ignore a fact-checking unit, it certainly has the option to do so, but it will have to defend that in a court of law against whoever is disputing their version of the truth,” Chandrasekhar stated. “If it is false, it will be labelled as fake; if it is true, it will not be labelled. There are no parameters for right and wrong, or truth and falsehood.”
Social media intermediaries can approach the courts if they do not agree with the government unit labelling a news story as fake, he said. However, if social media intermediaries do not take down content flagged as fake, they will lose their safe harbour status, Chandrasekhar said in a conversation on Twitter Spaces.
The conversation was briefly joined by IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, who didn’t offer any views on the subject.
Discover the stories of your interest
“There are multiple proposals in front of us in terms of what the design (of the unit) ought to be. I can’t tell you what the composition is till we finalise it,” Chandrasekhar said.The Centre on April 6 notified the establishment of a state-appointed body to fact check all government-related content online deemed as misinformation or disinformation.
The fact-checking unit of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) is the “preferred agency” for the task, Chandrasekhar had previously told ET.
Opposition to plan
However, other government-appointed fact-checking organisations, apart from the PIB fact-check unit, may also be notified in future.
The proposal has been criticised as a move to suppress news critical of the government.
The Editor’s Guild has called it “draconian” and asked the ministry to “withdraw this notification and conduct consultations with media organisations and press bodies.” The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, “will have deeply adverse implications for press freedom in the country,” it said in a statement last week.
Chandrasekhar was asked if the fact-check unit will provide any reasoning on why a particular news story has been flagged fake. In the past, the PIB’s fact-check unit has not done so.
“The government’s fact-check unit has to earn the respect of social media intermediaries, and social media intermediaries have to trust the judgement of the fact check unit,” the minister said. “We should allow the institution to perform and earn the credibility from the people who depend on it.”
Online gaming
The minister also said “it is meaningless for state governments to legislate on the internet” in the context of Tamil Nadu banning online rummy and poker with stakes.
“The internet and activities on the internet can never be a state subject and can never be regulated by states. Even countries are having difficulties in regulating the internet because of the borderless nature of cyberspace. The gaming rules say what can and cannot be done on the internet,” Chandrasekhar said.
“This power rests with the government of India via the IT Act and, in the future, via the Digital India Act, its successor. Under the IT Act, we’re saying anything that is wagering is a no-go for the intermediary.”
When asked about reconciling what the IT Rules prescribe on gaming and what the states wish to do, the minister said, “Betting and gambling are the same. Some states allow it, and some states don’t allow it. Betting is fine in Goa, but not fine in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and many other states.”
“This is not, in any way, an attempt to regulate betting as has been happening or is being regulated by the states for their law and order. It’s banned in most states and when they fall foul of the criminal law, cases are filed with the local police and are prosecuted. That continues unchecked as it is now,” he said.
Chandrasekhar said, “The Tamil Nadu Act is lost because it is making complex nuances of games of chance and games of skill. This is not the issue today because betting is defined as wagering on the outcome of a game,” he said.
“Whether the game is a game of skill or a game of chance does not matter. You could be playing chess, and if there is a provision of betting on the outcome of the game, it is still betting. If states want to do more than banning online betting, they are free to do that,” he said.
