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. 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 Twitter's 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?
  • a)
    No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.
  • b)
    Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.
  • c)
    No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.
  • d)
    None of the above.
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...
Both the Member of Parliament and the passage contend that the substantial size and monopolistic status of big tech companies present a significant looming danger to democracies, primarily owing to their immense influence.
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.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.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?

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?

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?

Direction: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.Several countries have already felt the need to have in place robust responses to disinformation. The European Union (EU) has put out the Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022. Some of the strengthened initiatives of the EU Code include transparency in Political advertising, empowerment of factcheckers and researchers, tools to flag disinformation, and measures to reduce manipulative behaviour. The United Kingdom has proposed enacting an Online Safety Bill which will expect social media platforms (intermediaries) to actively monitor problematic content. Even as the U.K. Bill is being reviewed by a committee in the House of Lords, there are already calls from a number of companies, including WhatsApp and Signal, to scrap the legislation in the interest of privacy. During the progress of the U.K. Bill, the provisions to monitor “legal but harmful” content have already been replaced with greater onus on social media platforms to enforce their terms and conditions in accordance with their policies.A more studied, comprehensive and calculated set of legislative actions is required if there is to be a balance between allowing free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, and protecting citizens from falling prey to malicious disinformation. In the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union Of India (2018) the Supreme Court of India had held that it is the duty of the Union and State governments to take steps to curb dissemination of “irresponsible and explosive messages and videos having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind”. Many people can recollect the panic India witnessed in many instances as a result of fake news during the early months of the COVID19 pandemic. The Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava vs Union Of India (2020) dealt with a Public Interest Litigation on the plight of migrant workers walking thousands of kilometres back home when the country went into its first lockdown. Such instances illustrate the real dangers to public order as a result of the dissemination of fake news.Rather than coming up with a robust framework to tackle the root causes of disinformation, the Union has granted itself greater powers to strike down any content that is found to be unpalatable. With the use of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Union Government has blocked access to any information online that it considers necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and the integrity of India, the security of the state or public order. More recently, the Union brought out the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Cod e) Rules, 2021, or IT Rules, 2021, to regulate content by online publishers of news and social media intermediaries. The recent draft amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, empower the Press Information Bureau, which functions under the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to ‘flag inaccurate and fake news related to government bodies on social media platforms’ amounts to disinformation. It is apparent that the focus has more to do with containing criticism against the Union Government and its leaders than about blocking fake news as such.Q.Which of the following represents a valid rationale for believing that robust responses are necessary to combat disinformation effectively?

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.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?a)No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.b)Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.c)No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.d)None of the above.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.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?a)No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.b)Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.c)No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.d)None of the above.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.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?a)No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.b)Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.c)No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.d)None of the above.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.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?a)No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.b)Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.c)No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.d)None of the above.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.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?a)No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.b)Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.c)No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.d)None of the above.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.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?a)No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.b)Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.c)No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.d)None of the above.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.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?a)No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.b)Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.c)No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.d)None of the above.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.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?a)No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.b)Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.c)No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.d)None of the above.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.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?a)No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.b)Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.c)No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.d)None of the above.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.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?a)No, his statement is merely political fearmongering.b)Yes, due to their monopolistic status, big tech companies are influencing the formation of opinions.c)No, all these companies are responsible and likely to reform in the coming years.d)None of the above.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