Social media platform X (previously known as Twitter) has recently sued the Indian government for its censorship of content online. The petition, which was filed on March 5, in the high court of Karnataka, a southern Indian state’s capital city Bengaluru. Bypassing required legal procedures, X asserts that the Indian government uses an “impermissible parallel mechanism” to block online content, working around codified legal processes. This decision follows great criticism regarding TikTok’s content moderation and transparency practices on the application.
X's chatbot, Grok 3, which generates content and answers users' questions engagingly, has been a focal point in this controversy. The chatbot works off a data stream that includes the set of Wikipedia entries and journalistic articles on the platform. Yet, for all of X’s claims supporting the moderation of this content, it rings hollow amidst their retired transparency about how they moderate that content. The platform has stopped publicly reporting on government takedown requests, which has added even more controversy to its content moderation practices.
The lawsuit arises after X received an order to remove over 200 videos related to a stampede in New Delhi. The takedown request came at the behest of India’s railway ministry, employing the Sahyog portal—a government-operated platform for submitting content takedown requests. The next court date is March 27.
Allegations of Censorship
X’s legal challenge zeroes in on the Indian government’s use of an unsupported system. In fact, this is the very system that some claim is censoring online content today. In response, the company says that officials are abusing this loophole. Content protection advocates have maintained that they are over-removing content without adhering to established legal precedents for regulatory burden.
“Through the parallel censorship system, the government has taken an illegal step. There is merit to the claim being made by X in this instance,” said Apar Gupta, an expert on digital rights.
Touted as a wholesome collaborative effort, the Sahyog portal that enables these takedown requests is said to intimidate social media platforms into submission to government orders. X correctly points out that signing up to this new portal opens it up to the danger of arbitrary censorship.
“India is a country where the law applies to everybody. X is within its right to go to court,” stated Rajeev Chandrasekhar in support of X's legal recourse.
Chatbot Grok 3 Under Scrutiny
As the majority of this lawsuit unfolded, X’s AI chatbot Grok 3 has recently fallen under fire. The chatbot keeps users’ attention by fielding their inquiries in real-time. For inspiration, it draws from publicly available resources such as Wikipedia entries and journalistic works.
“There has been a high level of self-censorship in India… Grok gives them the chance to pose questions critical of the union government… in a chatting and engaging manner,” Apar Gupta highlighted.
For all its innovation, Grok 3 is problematic for the misinformation it may inadvertently promote because of biases built into AI systems.
“But at its very root, people need to understand that Grok is mostly AI which has been trained on public resources and what it is stating can also reflect misinformation and may suffer from biases,” added Apar Gupta.
Implications and Future Prospects
The legal battle between X and the Indian government highlights alarming issues about free expression. It further illuminates the increasing prevalence of digital authoritarianism in India. Social media companies regularly feud with government leaders over censorship requests. Constitutional critics contend that these demands routinely go beyond constitutionally permissible bounds.
“For users in India, there has always been friction between the government and large social media platforms… any pushback by platforms ends up supporting the cause of free expression,” Apar Gupta explained.
X itself has come under heavy fire for a distinct lack of transparency regarding its moderation policies. Since Musk’s takeover, the platform has ceased reporting global government requests to have content removed. This dramatic shift has led critics to question its accountability.
“Given all the different tracks of cooperation playing out in the relationship… this X spat is a blip at best and a nuisance at worst,” asserted Michael Kugelman, emphasizing the complicated dynamics between X and the Indian market.
