Parl panel suggests X ‘Community Notes’ may be treated as publishing activity: Chairperson

AParliamentary venire has suggested that features the likes of “ community of interests notes” on X could be treated as a publishing activity, according to citizens committee chairperson and Bharatiya Janata company (BJP) lawmaker Nishikant Dubey, potentially redefining the platform’s role from an intermediary to a publisher.Community notes is an entirely user-generated feature that allows users to add context under a misleading post.The parliamentary standing committee on communications and information technology has suggested that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) direct platforms to disable “community notes” or consider imposing a “publisher tax”, which experts see it as obligations similar to Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, which requires platforms to compensate news publishers. Dubey said on X, “Our committee, that is, the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology, has unanimously told @GoI_MeitY, the Government of India, that @XCorpIndia’s job is community note publishing, not that of an intermediary, so either social media platforms should shut down their community notes, otherwise, as per Australia’s law, they will have to pay the publishers’ tax.” (Translated from Hindi).This has drawn sharp reactions from experts, opposition leaders, and digital rights groups, who warn it could have far-reaching implications for free speech and platform liability in India.However, MeitY has not received a formal recommendation from the parliamentary panel. “If we receive a formal recommendation, we will examine,” a ministry official, on condition of anonymity, said.HT reached out to X and Dubey for comment. The report will be updated upon receiving a response.The panel’s observations come against the backdrop of proposed amendments to the Information Technology Rules, 2021, which seek to expand the government’s regulatory oversight to user-generated content, including features like community notes, when they relate to news, politics, or public policy.As reported by HT on April 10, these changes could bring community notes under the ambit of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, potentially allowing authorities to order the removal of notes, including those that add context to or challenge claims made by public officials.The report has since drawn responses from opposition parties. Karnataka’s IT minister and Congress leader Priyank Kharge posted on X, “Community Notes on X, which allowed users to democratically challenge misinformation, is now being quietly brought under tighter control through the new IT rules...Just weeks ago, several accounts that raised legitimate criticism against the BJP Government were quietly withheld. Why is there no similar action against those who spread vile hatred and propaganda under the patronage of the BJP IT cell.”A Shiv Sena (UBT) MP wrote on X, “This is an unnecessary and unreasonable encroachment through the draft IT rules proposed by @GoI_MeitY. As a balanced approach to policy and technology, we can set a better example for the world. Introducing such rules gives the impression that the country’s government seeks to suppress the community’s ability to expose misinformation through community notes.”Experts have largely refuted the idea that an intermediary which allows community notes on its platform can be treated like a publisher.“Community Notes are user-generated and surfaced algorithmically only when they reflect cross-ideological consensus. Just because the intermediary chooses a specific algorithm for surfacing a community note does not make it a publisher. If that logic were extended, no platform today would qualify as a pure intermediary, since all rely on algorithms to organise and surface content at scale,” founding partner at the public policy firm The Quantum Hub (TQH) Rohit Kumar said.“Rather than force-fitting publisher liability onto intermediaries, the more appropriate regulatory direction should be the emerging ‘duty of care’ frameworks. These preserve safe harbour for user content while placing responsibility on platforms to design systems that mitigate clearly identified harms, with penalties for failure to do so. Having said that, I don’t see there being any problem with the idea of community notes per se. Given the extent of misinformation on the internet, how else is content to be moderated?” added Kumar.Dubey’s post also attached a picture of a document explaining the role of “intermediaries” in Australia’s criminal justice system, which refers to trained professionals who assist witnesses in court, rather than digital platforms or social media services.Digital rights advocacy group Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has questioned both the procedural and factual basis of Dubey’s claim, noting that no report of the parliamentary committee placed before the House mentions “Community Notes”. It also flagged that committee proceedings are typically confidential until formally tabled, and said the statement contains a “material inaccuracy”, particularly in invoking Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, which “operates in an entirely distinct field” and does not treat features like “Community Notes” as publishing activity.IFF further argued that under Indian law, including the precedent set in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, merely hosting or ranking user content does not strip platforms of intermediary protection, warning that expanding this interpretation could have broader implications for free speech online.MeitY published the amended IT rules on March 30 and asked for comments by April 14. However, after objections from industry and civil society following consultations on April 7, the ministry extended the timeline for inviting feedback by two weeks, allowing comments from stakeholders till April 29.