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.According to the passage, why does the author find it necessary to have debates on uniform laws for social media?a)To determine the appropriate punishment for all social media violators.b)To ensure that social media companies remain profitable.c)To address the issue of selective enforcement of policies.d)To prevent foreign companies from operating in India.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.According to the passage, why does the author find it necessary to have debates on uniform laws for social media?a)To determine the appropriate punishment for all social media violators.b)To ensure that social media companies remain profitable.c)To address the issue of selective enforcement of policies.d)To prevent foreign companies from operating in India.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.According to the passage, why does the author find it necessary to have debates on uniform laws for social media?a)To determine the appropriate punishment for all social media violators.b)To ensure that social media companies remain profitable.c)To address the issue of selective enforcement of policies.d)To prevent foreign companies from operating in India.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.According to the passage, why does the author find it necessary to have debates on uniform laws for social media?a)To determine the appropriate punishment for all social media violators.b)To ensure that social media companies remain profitable.c)To address the issue of selective enforcement of policies.d)To prevent foreign companies from operating in India.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.According to the passage, why does the author find it necessary to have debates on uniform laws for social media?a)To determine the appropriate punishment for all social media violators.b)To ensure that social media companies remain profitable.c)To address the issue of selective enforcement of policies.d)To prevent foreign companies from operating in India.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.According to the passage, why does the author find it necessary to have debates on uniform laws for social media?a)To determine the appropriate punishment for all social media violators.b)To ensure that social media companies remain profitable.c)To address the issue of selective enforcement of policies.d)To prevent foreign companies from operating in India.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.According to the passage, why does the author find it necessary to have debates on uniform laws for social media?a)To determine the appropriate punishment for all social media violators.b)To ensure that social media companies remain profitable.c)To address the issue of selective enforcement of policies.d)To prevent foreign companies from operating in India.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.According to the passage, why does the author find it necessary to have debates on uniform laws for social media?a)To determine the appropriate punishment for all social media violators.b)To ensure that social media companies remain profitable.c)To address the issue of selective enforcement of policies.d)To prevent foreign companies from operating in India.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.According to the passage, why does the author find it necessary to have debates on uniform laws for social media?a)To determine the appropriate punishment for all social media violators.b)To ensure that social media companies remain profitable.c)To address the issue of selective enforcement of policies.d)To prevent foreign companies from operating in India.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.