Critics fear the new IT rules in India, where the internet is dominated by US digital platforms, give the government even more power to stomp out dissent
For more than 30 years, Manjul, who goes by his first name only, has skewered leaders from every Indian government … Tweets: @evelyndouek , @pranavdixit , and @kateconger Tweets: Evelyn Douek / @evelyndouek : Great piece by @PranavDixit on the ongoing most important battle for free speech online today: India vs. platforms and the gvt's escalating attempts to exert control https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ ... @pranavdixit : For years, India was viewed as the biggest market for Big Tech. But new govt rules are forcing companies to make tough choices and silencing critics. I spoke to @disharavii and @MANJULtoons about what the new rules mean for the future of online dissent. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ ... O...K / @kateconger : Twitter's growth plans collide with India's crackdowns on online speech, via @PranavDixit https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ ...
Context & Ripple Effects
This piece lands at the end of a two-year arc: India first floated internet rules that could compel post removal back in 2019, when critics warned they would stifle speech, and by mid-2021 Google, Facebook, Telegram, LinkedIn, ShareChat and Koo had fully or partially complied while Twitter was still holding out. The article's central figure, the cartoonist Manjul, embodies what is at stake for individual critics once those rules bind the platforms they depend on.
First-order effects
- US platforms operating in their largest growth market must now choose between removing content on government demand and resisting, a choice Twitter has so far answered differently from its peers.
- Individual critics like Manjul face direct exposure: the intermediaries hosting their work now carry legal obligations that make silencing them the path of least resistance.
Second-order effects
- Compliance becomes competitive positioning in India — local platform Koo's early alignment with the rules contrasts with Twitter's resistance, giving the government leverage to favor cooperative players.
- The government's subsequent use of a 'fake news' pretext to crack down on social media dissent shows it can act even where formal rules leave gaps, raising the cost of any platform's non-cooperation.
Third-order effects
- If India's model holds, market access itself becomes the enforcement mechanism: governments condition the world's biggest consumer internet market on speech controls, and global platforms normalize takedown-first governance rather than contest it.
- A regulatory template built for US social platforms is positioned to extend to whatever infrastructure dominates next, since the underlying demand — state authority over digital speech — does not depend on which companies are in the market.
The trend: National governments are converting access to their consumer internet markets into a lever over platform speech policy, with India's IT rules as the clearest large-scale test.