Centre asks Meta to review content recommendation system over law and order posts to avoid ‘public confusion, disorder’

MeitY has asked Meta to change how Facebook and Instagram recommend content about ongoing public events and law-and-order situations. The concern is not only whether a post breaks the law, but also whether recommendation systems give misleading, manipulated, or context-free material unusually large reach. MeitY says this could contribute to confusion, apprehension, violence, or public disorder.

The advisory lists six actions. Meta must identify unlawful content, review ranking systems, add context to images and videos, avoid exposing users mainly to one narrative, rapidly escalate widely shared risky content, and cooperate with authorised agencies. It must act immediately and report the measures it takes.

The advisory does not name a protest or event, and it does not explain how “diversity” or “credible” information will be measured. Digital-rights advocates therefore fear that pressure over recommendations could become proactive censorship, especially around protest-related accounts and posts.

A social-media recommendation system is software that chooses, ranks, and repeatedly suggests posts, videos, or accounts for each user. Its purpose is to decide what appears prominently in feeds, search results, suggested content, or autoplay. This matters because visibility can grow sharply when a system recommends a post beyond its original audience.

In general, systems use signals such as a user’s past likes, views, follows, searches, and sharing patterns. They may also consider a post’s freshness, popularity, similarity to previously viewed material, and whether it meets platform rules. The article focuses on content that is “disproportionately amplified” or repeatedly recommended.

The article does not provide Meta’s exact ranking formula. It says MeitY wants Meta to review these mechanisms so misleading, manipulated, or out-of-context material is not repeatedly pushed, while users receive a more diverse set of relevant and credible information.

MeitY’s advisory lists six specific steps for Meta. Together, they address both the content itself and the systems that determine how widely it travels. The central idea is to reduce the risk that law-and-order material becomes misleading or socially disruptive through recommendation-driven reach.

The first category is identifying and addressing content covered by the IT Rules, including material that may cause public disorder or incite violence. The second covers reviewing rankings and recommendations. The third requires context for public-event images and videos. The fourth seeks diversity beyond one narrative. The fifth demands rapid identification, review, and escalation of high-reach risky content. The sixth concerns timely cooperation with authorised agencies.

Meta must implement the measures immediately and tell MeitY what it has done. The advisory does not state how narrative diversity or credibility will be measured, leaving important details unresolved.

MeitY’s concern is that posts about live law-and-order events can be misunderstood when users cannot tell what happened, where or when it happened, or whether the material is authentic. A recycled image, edited video, or unsupported statement may therefore create a false impression of events. The advisory links such confusion to apprehension, violence, disturbance, and damage to social tranquillity.

The key mechanism is recommendation-driven amplification. A post can reach far beyond its original followers when a platform repeatedly recommends it or places it prominently in feeds. If the material is misleading or lacks context, greater reach can spread the misunderstanding quickly. MeitY specifically asks Meta to add context and identify content gaining significant reach.

The advisory does not claim that every post about public events causes disorder. It asks Meta to address material that falls within applicable legal categories or presents a serious risk when amplified, while the boundaries remain contested by digital-rights advocates.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 is India’s principal law for electronic records, digital activity, cyber offences, and intermediary liability. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are rules made under that framework. They set due-diligence, grievance-handling, cooperation, and compliance expectations for covered online platforms. This background uses established legal knowledge; the article itself only refers to due-diligence obligations.

In this advisory, MeitY reminds Meta of those obligations and asks it to identify and address content covered by the IT Rules. It also asks Meta to cooperate with law-enforcement and authorised government agencies by providing information or assistance within legal timelines.

The article does not list every responsibility or explain the Act’s complete enforcement process. It does say the October 10 advisory is not described as legally binding by the digital-rights advocate quoted, and it records concern that the request could encourage proactive restrictions without specific government takedown orders.

Recommendation systems shape what users encounter first and most often. If they repeatedly promote one interpretation of a protest, detention, internet shutdown, or government action, users may receive a narrow picture of a contested event. Asking Meta to provide diverse and relevant information could expose people to additional accounts, evidence, and explanations instead of one dominant narrative.

The advisory specifically tells Meta not to expose users disproportionately to a single or limited set of narratives. It also asks for context about photographs, videos, graphics, authenticity, dates, locations, and circumstances. These changes could affect which protest posts gain reach, how official actions are presented, and how criticism circulates.

The unresolved issue is who decides what is “credible” and how diversity should be measured. The article says the advisory provides no answer. Digital-rights advocates fear that government pressure could restrict protest-related content rather than simply broaden users’ information.

When harmful or misleading content appears, a government can pursue different responses. It may seek removal where content violates applicable law, ask platforms to add warnings or context, reduce algorithmic recommendations without deleting the post, or require information that helps authorised agencies investigate. These choices matter because each affects speech, visibility, and enforcement differently.

MeitY’s advisory combines these approaches. It asks Meta to identify and address content covered by the IT Rules, review ranking systems, provide context, stop disproportionate amplification, rapidly escalate high-reach material, and cooperate with authorised agencies. In other words, it focuses heavily on distribution and escalation, not only on takedowns.

The article records concern from Internet Freedom Foundation founder Apar Gupta that this could create proactive censorship, restricting protest-related posts without government takedown orders. The advisory itself says measures must follow applicable law, but it does not specify when each response should be used.