Information technology minister Ravi Shankar Prasad defended BJP on a newspaper report that Ankhi Das, public policy director of Facebook for India, South and Central Asia, had opposed her group applying hate speech rules to some BJP members. The minister said it was for Facebook to deal with the matter.
The minister dismissed opposition allegations of Facebook’s partiality towards BJP, saying: “700 pages of content of BJP supporters were removed by Facebook. This is also a fact. If the platform in question is a public platform then every Indian, regardless of his ideology or commitment, has the right to convey his or her views.”
BJP leaders maintained that after losing support of the masses, Congress was left only with the option of using social media to take on the government. “It is a hard fact that people whose base has shrunk like anything seek to dominate public discourse on these platforms. That is not right,” Prasad said.
Meanwhile, the fight between members of BJP-led NDA and the opposition in the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology continued even as some MPs demanded a JPC probe into the whole issue. Asked about the JPC demand, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, told ET: “Why should there be a JPC on a private company? Parliament is for making policy.
One cannot even name a private person (while levelling any allegation) in a parliament debate. It is expunged by the Chair.” On the issue of committee head Shashi Tharoor planning to summon Facebook, Dubey, who is also in the panel, said: “Only the presiding officer of the House (in this case the Speaker of Lok Sabha) can decide when a private person or an official from a state government has to be summoned. The subject to be discussed is decided in the committee’s meeting... Tharoor should realise that the parliamentary standing committee is an extension of Parliament, not Congress.”
Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.
1 Comment on this Story
M.L. Gupta161 days ago
They use an English that is not legal in India under the Constitution of India as "it was not being used for the purpose before coming into force of the constitution". As far as is known, only the UK English was in use before the Constitution of India came into force and not the American English. Don't laugh. Can you read Mark Twain and explain his English? What is the Committee examining: FB, NYT, WP, WSJ? Please simplify their English so that the people know what the congress is fighting for: DH Lawrence or Mark Twain?