The recent policy on social media by the Uttar Pradesh government, which was approved on 28th August 2024 by the state cabinet, under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has sparked intense debate regarding the balance of censorship between national security and the fundamental right to free speech.
The main objective of the newly implemented social media policy in Uttar Pradesh is to create awareness about various government schemes that are launched by the state government with the help of social media influencers, and in return, they would be provided with monetary benefits.
But there’s a catch, it also aims to monitor and regulate social media users, particularly targeting content that could jeopardize public safety or national security.
What is this new policy all about?
Central to this initiative is the classification of social media influencers into four distinct categories based on their follower counts. The guidelines also mention categorizing influencers into four groups, with payment restrictions dependent on the number of subscribers and followers on each site.
“For X, and Instagram, the maximum monthly payment limits are set at ₹five lakh, ₹four lakh, ₹three lakh and ₹two lakhs respectively, while on YouTube, and Facebook the payment limits for videos, shorts, and podcasts are ₹ten lakh, ₹five lakh, ₹two lakh, and ₹one lakh, respectively,” according to the statement.
What is the controversy around this policy?
Critics argue that this policy infringes upon the right to free speech enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. This could oppress debates, weaken democratic principles, and promote self-censorship among content creators, journalists, and activists—groups vital to holding the government accountable.
The broad and vague definitions of “anti-national” content could lead to a chilling effect on public discourse, discouraging individuals from expressing objections or criticizing the government.
The vagueness of these terms poses significant challenges, as they leave ample room for subjective interpretation and potential misuse, raising alarms among advocates of free expression. What can be labelled as ‘anti-national’, and what cannot? Nothing has been specified on that note.
In today’s world the landscape of online communication is changing, with the rise of influencers as political tools this policy will blur the lines between authentic content and paid political messages, which further would just go ahead to confuse the audience.
In India, a huge section of the demography are the youngsters who are vulnerable to disinformation by paid influencers promoting political messages so it would be a significant challenge for the protection of younger audiences from manipulation. These influencers, perceived as authentic, often target impressionable users, bypassing scrutiny.
The rising popularity of such a relatively small-scope influencer as nano-influencers who develop deep relationships within a certain geographic region raises ethical concerns. Although for real people these small influencers can trigger a real discussion, on the negative side, they can also help spread fake news.
Also Read: Controversies, Rights, and Citizenship surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act?
This is a trend that is being mirrored across the globe where influencers are being paid to spread political messages without clear disclosure, making it difficult to identify the real motives behind their posts.
In the U.S., social media companies have been criticized for failing to act decisively against political influencers spreading disinformation, as political parties back these influencers and pursue them to promote their agenda.
Research also shows that influencers have slowly turned into mouthpieces for conspiracy theories and deceptive political content due to the campaigns that involve them intentionally. This is because such activities are hard to moderate especially because influencers are authentic in their paid campaigns.
This challenge is especially relevant concerning Uttar Pradesh because the government is aiming to form policies to ensure that the political process is not influenced by disinformation while not going into unnecessary censorship.
Conclusion
If the UP government’s activities are perceived as excessive or oppressive, they risk weakening public trust and the very foundation of democracy. That is why the state government should ensure a balance between national security and the protection of individual rights, and safeguard people, especially young users. And even though the policy is approved, there needs to be transparency.
An avoidance should be made into making the state’s government authoritarian, and using this policy as a hypodermic needle to control the vulnerable to promote their agendas, which many people might perceive as the sole promotion of ‘RSS-BJP’.
The way UP addresses these emerging issues could set the tone for the future of digital regulation in India’s political sphere.
Authored by Sharanya, a 3rd year B.Voc. Media and Communication student at Fergusson.
Thank you for taking the time to read this! Please share this article if you enjoyed it. Also, you can follow us on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Pinterest to get more interesting articles.