All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Directions: Read the following passage and an... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
It's high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldn't care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they won't be.
They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, it's incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we don't question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.
Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from, 'Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?', Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]
Q. What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?
  • a)
    The banning of Twitter in China.
  • b)
    The suspension of a dairy cooperative's Twitter account in India.
  • c)
    The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.
  • d)
    The profitability of social media companies.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its hig...
The passage provides an example to illustrate the problem of selective enforcement by social media platforms. Specifically, the author mentions the temporary suspension of Amul's Twitter account in India. Amul is a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, and their account was suspended after they had posted an ad with the phrase "Exit the Dragon" during a conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. The suspension of Amul's account is presented as an example of selective enforcement because it was perceived as an unfair decision. The ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and yet, Twitter decided to suspend their account. This example highlights the inconsistency in how social media platforms enforce their policies, and it serves as evidence of the issue of selective enforcement discussed in the passage.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its hig...
Selective Enforcement Illustrated
The author effectively illustrates the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms through the example of the suspension of Amul's Twitter account. Here’s a breakdown of the reasoning:
Context of the Example
- The incident involved Amul, a well-known dairy cooperative in India, which faced a temporary suspension on Twitter after posting an advertisement with the phrase "Exit the Dragon."
- This ad emerged during a sensitive time, following the conflict at the India-China border, where 20 Indian soldiers lost their lives in 2020.
Public Reaction
- The suspension sparked significant outrage among the public, as many believed that the ad did not violate free speech laws in India.
- Critics viewed this action as arbitrary and unfair, raising questions about Twitter's criteria for enforcement of its policies.
Highlighting Selectiveness
- By choosing to suspend Amul’s account while allowing other users, including those spreading misinformation, to continue without consequence, the author emphasizes the inconsistency in how social media platforms apply their rules.
- This example showcases the potential for bias and lack of transparency in enforcement, leading to concerns about the fairness of social media governance.
Conclusion
- The incident serves as a microcosm of the broader issue of selective enforcement, where social media companies may prioritize profit or political pressure over equitable treatment of users.
- This example underscores the need for uniform laws and accountability in how social media platforms manage content and user interactions.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.According to the passage, why does the author find it necessary to have debates on uniform laws for social media?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.Is the action taken by President John Doe of Lala Land in banning all social media apps, including Facebook and Twitter, justified in light of the arguments presented in the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.Is Tejasvi Surya, a Member of Parliament, correct in his assertion that unregulated big tech companies pose a fresh threat to democracies, as evidenced by Twitters permanent ban on outgoing US President Donald Trump, considering the distinctions between intermediaries and media platforms, their exemption from liability under Section 79 of the IT Act, and their newfound ability to censor free speech without state oversight?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.Social media companies frequently employ selective fact-checks, labels, suspensions, and bans, influenced by their own ideologies. Is it acceptable to permit them to continue operating in this manner?

Passage: Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 per cent leadership and only 10 to 30 per cent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those burrreaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programmes, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures an smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why, according to the author, is a distinction between management and leadership crucial?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?a)The banning of Twitter in China.b)The suspension of a dairy cooperatives Twitter account in India.c)The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.d)The profitability of social media companies.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?a)The banning of Twitter in China.b)The suspension of a dairy cooperatives Twitter account in India.c)The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.d)The profitability of social media companies.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?a)The banning of Twitter in China.b)The suspension of a dairy cooperatives Twitter account in India.c)The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.d)The profitability of social media companies.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?a)The banning of Twitter in China.b)The suspension of a dairy cooperatives Twitter account in India.c)The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.d)The profitability of social media companies.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?a)The banning of Twitter in China.b)The suspension of a dairy cooperatives Twitter account in India.c)The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.d)The profitability of social media companies.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?a)The banning of Twitter in China.b)The suspension of a dairy cooperatives Twitter account in India.c)The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.d)The profitability of social media companies.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?a)The banning of Twitter in China.b)The suspension of a dairy cooperatives Twitter account in India.c)The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.d)The profitability of social media companies.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?a)The banning of Twitter in China.b)The suspension of a dairy cooperatives Twitter account in India.c)The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.d)The profitability of social media companies.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?a)The banning of Twitter in China.b)The suspension of a dairy cooperatives Twitter account in India.c)The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.d)The profitability of social media companies.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Its high time that we have debates to decide on uniform laws that police social media, and decide how fact checks, labels, suspensions, and bans should be enacted whenever the first violation occurs, and apply equally and fairly to every violator. Social media platforms are as guilty as those who post misinformation on them if they decide to step in only selectively when it suits them. At other times, they choose to remain silent because they are raking in profits or they couldnt care enough. So, as it stands now, they get to decide how long they will allow a user to be inciteful or spread fake news, who will be fact-checked and who will continue scot-free, and when a user will be fact-checked and when they wont be.They can decide to wake up one day, find a scapegoat, and chop his head off and absolve themselves of all their culpability. For example, its incredible that China that is autocratic and has banned Twitter within its territory, and has allowed to have mouthpieces on Twitter that spread misinformation. So are some terrorist organisations and questionable groups. They have not yet been banned. If we dont question what happened, the opaque and selective policies and hidden algorithms of tech companies will drive public discourse and perception. This is worrying because most of these companies are monopolies and do not allow competition to thrive, and form cartels among themselves - even more worrisome for India because they are foreign companies.Google decides what to show us in search results and what to hide, Facebook decides our newsfeed and individualizes it for each person, and Twitter arbitrarily checks and bans. Besides, we cannot rule out that anyone who decides to confront these companies might get conveniently restricted or de-platformed. For instance, in a questionable move, Twitter temporarily suspended the account of Amul, a famous and iconic dairy cooperative in India, after they had posted an ad with the phrase Exit the Dragon during the conflict at the India-China border in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in 2020. There was an outrage against this move because the ad did not violate free speech laws in India, and the decision seemed unfair.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Twitter Silenced The US President; Who Will Police Twitter?, Aparna Roy, Swarajyamag]Q.What example does the author use to illustrate the issue of selective enforcement by social media platforms?a)The banning of Twitter in China.b)The suspension of a dairy cooperatives Twitter account in India.c)The spread of misinformation by terrorist organizations.d)The profitability of social media companies.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup