Daily Passage Test for CLAT - Apr 26 MCQs & solutions Free

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.

The author believes that it is crucial to engage in debates about establishing uniform laws for social media. The passage emphasizes the need for these debates because social media platforms are currently facing a significant problem: the selective enforcement of their policies. The author argues that social media platforms should have consistent rules and regulations that are applied equally and fairly to every user, regardless of who they are or what they post. This means that when someone violates the platform's rules, the consequences, such as fact checks, labels, suspensions, or bans, should be enacted uniformly. The concern here is that social media companies sometimes choose to step in selectively when it suits their interests, which can lead to a lack of accountability. Therefore, addressing the issue of selective enforcement is the main reason the author advocates for debates on uniform laws for social media.

The passage contends that the lack of transparency in tech companies' policies, along with their selective practices and concealed algorithms, significantly influence public discourse and perception. Consequently, there is a strong likelihood that they could interfere with the outcome of elections.

The passage asserts that social media companies are functioning akin to contemporary oligarchs, and there is a necessity to oversee their operations to safeguard the preservation of freedom of speech and functionality.

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.