The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has asked Meta to review its content recommendation systems on Facebook and Instagram to prevent misleading or inflammatory material from being disproportionately promoted. The October 10 advisory also seeks details of the company’s response, drawing criticism from digital rights advocates who fear restrictions on free speech.
What Has the Centre Asked Meta to Do?
The advisory, dated October 10, directs Meta to exercise greater diligence in handling content relating to ongoing public events, particularly during periods of heightened public-order sensitivity.
The ministry expressed concern that videos, photographs, statements and graphics relating to public events could be circulated without sufficient context or amplified through recommendation systems.
It warned that such content, when misleading or disproportionately promoted, could contribute to public confusion, apprehension and disturbances to public order.
Unlike an earlier advisory issued on October 8 to social media companies generally, the latest communication was addressed specifically to Meta, which operates Facebook and Instagram.
The ministry asked the company to act immediately and inform the government about the measures undertaken.
FCRF Launches CP-FRM to Build India’s Next Generation of Fraud Risk Professionals
What Changes Are Expected in Meta’s Algorithms?
The advisory outlines six measures covering content identification, algorithmic recommendations, contextual information and cooperation with authorities.
Meta has been asked to identify and address content that could cause public disorder or incite violence or other unlawful activity, in accordance with applicable laws and the Information Technology Rules.
The ministry also wants the company to review its recommendation and content-ranking mechanisms to prevent potentially misleading, manipulated or out-of-context material from being repeatedly recommended or disproportionately amplified.
Meta has been asked to provide sufficient context for photographs, videos and other material depicting ongoing public events, particularly when the authenticity, date, location or circumstances are not immediately clear.
Another requirement concerns the diversity of information presented to users. The company has been asked to ensure that recommendation systems do not disproportionately expose people to a single or limited set of narratives and instead provide a wider range of relevant and credible information.
However, the advisory does not explain how such diversity should be measured or who would determine what qualifies as credible information.
What Content Is Under Scrutiny?
The government has identified several categories of content requiring closer attention during sensitive public events.
These include old, unrelated or selectively edited photographs and videos presented as current developments.
The advisory also refers to unverified or misleading claims concerning emergency restrictions, police action and other official measures.
Audio-visual material depicting law-and-order situations without adequate context is another area of concern.
The ministry has also asked Meta to strengthen its systems for rapidly identifying and reviewing content that gains substantial reach through recommendation algorithms and could contribute to violence or public disorder.
The company has been directed to cooperate with law enforcement and other authorised government agencies within the applicable legal framework and timelines under the IT Rules, 2021.
Why Has the Timing Raised Questions?
The October 10 advisory was issued during protests involving the Cockroach Jantar Party.
On the same day, party leaders were detained, internet services were suspended for 24 hours within a four-kilometre radius of Jantar Mantar, and thousands of protesters were reportedly detained across eight areas during the day.
The earlier October 8 advisory had also addressed social media companies’ responsibilities in managing content that could affect public order.
A MeitY official had described that communication as general in nature rather than specifically related to protests demanding the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
Neither advisory explicitly names a protest or political event. The ministry did not respond to a request for clarification about the October 10 communication.
Why Are Digital Rights Advocates Concerned?
Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, criticised the advisory as a form of government pressure on social media platforms.
He argued that although the communication was not legally binding, it could encourage Meta to restrict protest-related accounts and posts without formal government orders.
Gupta said the Internet Freedom Foundation had assisted at least nine to ten creators and journalists over the preceding two weeks whose accounts had faced restrictions allegedly imposed proactively by Meta.
He also questioned the use of expressions such as content lacking adequate context and heightened public-order sensitivity, arguing that these terms were not tied to specific provisions of the IT Act or IT Rules.
According to Gupta, the advisory raises broader concerns about the government influencing online speech through private communications with technology companies rather than through transparent legal procedures.
He called for the ministry to withdraw the advisory and for Meta to publicly disclose any content removals or reductions in visibility undertaken in response.
Has Meta Responded?
Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The available information does not establish whether the company has implemented the requested changes or altered its recommendation systems following the advisory.
The communication also does not specify how the government intends to assess compliance with the requirement to present diverse and credible information.
The issue therefore raises questions about the practical implementation of the advisory, the transparency of content moderation decisions and the distinction between preventing unlawful content and restricting legitimate public discussion.
The420 Insight
The Centre’s advisory places renewed attention on how social media algorithms influence the visibility of information during sensitive public events. While the government has emphasised preventing misleading content and public disorder, digital rights advocates have questioned whether broadly worded instructions could encourage restrictions on lawful expression. The absence of clear standards for measuring information diversity and identifying credible content makes transparency in Meta’s response particularly important.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
