Multiple social media URLs, accounts blocked for working against national interest: I-B Ministry
Information and Broadcasting Ministry
has informed a parliamentary committee that it has blocked, in accordance with law, multiple social media URLs and accounts for access in India as they were found to be working against
national interest
following the
Pahalgam terror attack
and
Operation Sindoor
. The ministry said it has also advised OTT platforms, media streaming platforms and intermediaries (social media platforms) to discontinue web-series, films, songs, podcasts and other streaming content having origins in Pakistan.
The ministry shared the details in its reply to the query of the Parliament's Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology, headed by BJP MP
Nishikant Dubey
, about the action being taken against social media influencers and platforms that were working against national interest.
It noted it had received multiple requests for blocking the content, and these were processed under relevant laws. It had issued an advisory as well on the issue.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
This might be relevant for you
adobe.com
Undo
The advisory had noted that several terrorist attacks in India have had cross-border linkages with Pakistan-based state and non-state actors.
"In the interest of national security, all OTT platforms, media streaming platforms and intermediaries operating in India are advised to discontinue the web-series, films, songs, podcasts and other streaming media content, whether made available on a subscription based model or otherwise, having its origins in Pakistan with immediate effect," it had said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
14 minutes ago
- Mint
Daunted by geopolitics, trade war, US companies in China report record-low new investment plans
Washington, American companies in China are reporting record-low new investment plans for this year and declining confidence in their profitability, with uncertainty in US-China relations and President Donald Trump's tariffs their top concerns, according to a new survey. The companies are also challenged by China's slowing economy, where weak domestic demand and overcapacity in local industries are eroding profitability for the Americans. 'Businesses in China are less profitable now than they were years ago, but risks, including reputational risk, regulatory risk, and political risk, are increasing,' said Sean Stein, the president of the US-China Business Council, a Washington-based group that represents American companies doing business in China, including major multinationals. The survey, conducted between March and May and drawing from 130 member companies, was released Wednesday. It came as the two countries clash over tariffs and non-tariff measures, including export controls on critical products such as rare-earth magnets and advanced computer chips. Following high-level talks in Geneva and London, US and Chinese officials agreed to pull back from sky-high tariffs and restrictions on exports, but uncertainty persists as the two sides are yet to hammer out a more permanent trade deal. Kyle Sullivan, vice president of business advisory services at the USCBC, said more than half of the companies in the survey indicated they do not have new investment plans in China 'at all' this year. "That's a record high,' Sullivan said, noting that it is 'a new development that we have not observed in previous surveys'. Around 40% of companies reported negative effects from US export control measures, with many experiencing lost sales, severed customer relationships, and reputational damage from being unreliable suppliers, according to the survey. Citing national security, the US government has banned exports to China of high-tech products, such as the most advanced chips, which could help boost China's military capabilities. Stein argued that export controls must be very carefully targeted, because businesses from Europe or Japan, or local businesses in China would immediately fill the void left by American companies. Silicon Valley chipmaker Nvidia won approval from the Trump administration to resume sales to China of its advanced H20 chips used to develop artificial intelligence, its CEO Jensen Huang announced on Monday, though the company's most powerful chips remain under US export control rules. While 82% of US companies reported profits in 2024, fewer than half are optimistic about the future in China, reflecting concerns over tariffs, deflation, and policy uncertainty, according to the survey. Also, a record high number of American businesses plan to relocate their business operations outside of China, Sullivan said, as 27% of the members indicated so, up from 19% the year before. In a departure from past surveys, concerns over China's regulatory environment, including risks of intellectual property misuse and lack of market access, didn't make it to the top five concerns this year. That's likely a first, and not for a good reason, Stein said. 'It is not because things got dramatically better on the Chinese side, but the new challenges, often coming from the US, are now posing as much of a challenge,' Stein said. Almost all the American companies said they cannot remain globally competitive without their Chinese operations. A survey from the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China in May found that European companies were cutting costs and scaling back investment plans in China as its economy slows and fierce competition drives down prices. SCY SCY This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump says Coca-Cola agreed to use ‘real' cane sugar for Coke in US; Does it have any real health benefits?
Donald Trump is on his way to shake up the bottle of Coke now! On July 16, the US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he had persuaded Coca‑Cola to return to using 'REAL Cane Sugar' in its US flagship drink– echoing the sweet, nostalgic taste favored in Mexico and abroad. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so. I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better,' Trump wrote in his Truth Social post. However, Coca-Cola hasn't confirmed Trump's claim. This comes after James Quincey, the CEO of Coca-Cola, presented the US President with a custom Diet Coke bottle for his January inauguration, continuing a tradition since 2005 where commemorative bottles mark presidential transitions. Trump, who is a known Diet Coke enthusiast, revealed that he consumed up to 12 cans daily during his first term. He previously received a standard Coca-Cola bottle in 2017 before the company corrected it to his preferred diet version. Although Trump's announcement of Coke supposedly agreeing to shift toward using 'real' cane sugar has already sparked widespread discussion about taste, and trade – one aspect remains more vital than the rest – the nutrition. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo Beyond the buzz, this raises a more grounded question: does cane sugar actually offer any health advantages over the uber-popular high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) currently used in American sodas? Let's delve into that discussion. What is cane sugar? Cane sugar is made from sugarcane, a tropical grass that's cultivated worldwide, particularly in Southeast Asia and India. It's made by crushing sugarcane, extracting the juice, boiling it to concentrate into syrup, and then allowing crystals to form, sometimes spun to remove molasses. There are three main forms: Unrefined (e.g., jaggery, muscovado): high molasses content, dark color, richer flavor. Raw (e.g., turbinado, demerara): lightly processed, golden crystals with some molasses flavor. Refined (typical cane-sourced granulated sugar): nearly identical to regular white sugar, but labeled as from cane. Is cane sugar good for health? Cane sugar is essentially sucrose, a molecule composed of glucose and fructose. It provides calories and carbohydrates but very few, if any, other nutrients. While cane sugar, like other sugars, can be part of a balanced diet when consumed in moderation, it's generally not considered "good" for health due to its potential negative impacts on weight, blood sugar levels, and overall well-being. In fact, keeping the idea of moderation in mind, the American Heart Association recommends limiting added sugars, including cane sugar, to less than 6 teaspoons (24 grams) per day for women and 9 teaspoons (36 grams) for men. The health debate: Cane sugar vs. HFCS Historically, US Coke switched from sugar to cheaper high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in 1984 due to Reagan-era sugar import quotas that doubled domestic sugar prices. Now, switching to cane sugar, as Trump has claimed, might have some economic impact. However, healthwise, we can break down the impact as follows: Nutritional parity: Scientifically, both cane sugar (sucrose) and HFCS are roughly equal in carbohydrate density and contribute similarly to calorie intake. Both contain around 4 calories per gram. Cane sugar is 50 % glucose/50 % fructose, while HFCS (typically HFCS‑55 ) is roughly 45–55 % fructose/glucose. Both are roughly equal in carbohydrate density and contribute similarly to calorie intake. So, there's no scientific evidence to support the claim that cane sugar would be healthwise 'better' than HFCS. Metabolic and health effects: High consumption of added sugars, no matter the type, is linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver, and metabolic syndrome. As per extensive research , only minimal metabolic or health differences have been found between sucrose and HFCS when consumed equally. Studies have linked high fructose consumption to insulin resistance , metabolic syndrome , obesity, and type 2 diabetes. Additionally, ultra‑processed fructose still contributes to fatty liver, metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes. However, studies have also shown HFCS to be occasionally linked to slightly higher inflammation markers . The 'natural' perception: Many consumers might think of opting for cane sugar due to its image as less processed or artificial, despite HFCS being generally safe and FDA-approved. This 'natural' preference often overshadows hard science when it comes to health outcomes. Furthermore, Harvard nutritionist Frank Hu noted HFCS isn't inherently worse than table sugar: 'We should worry about sugar in general.' Historical and economic context Since the 1980s, US bottlers, including Coca‑Cola since 1984, have used HFCS instead of cane sugar, largely due to cheaper corn subsidies and sugar import tariffs. Switching to cane sugar would likely increase costs, reduce domestic corn demand, and require importing more sugar, raising concerns about trade deficits and job losses. In fact, reverting to cane sugar would significantly raise costs: Mexican Coke (made with cane sugar) sells at premium prices, with 12-packs costing $15-$20 versus $6 for HFCS-sweetened Coca-Cola. While Trump's announcement supports Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign, aiming to reduce processed additives and sweeteners, merely switching sweeteners, as scientific research and data have shown, does not curb sugar consumption. True health improvement won't come from what we sweeten our cola with, or from switching to a supposed diet drink of the same kind – but from drinking fewer sugary beverages altogether. From a health standpoint, the real victory lies in moderation – consuming less sugar, regardless of its source, remains the most impactful step. Biden attacks Trump on virus as new milestone nears
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Sniper unit fired upon convoy': 27 Pakistani troops killed in separate attacks by Baloch fighters; IEDs also used
AI-generated image used for representation Over the past two days, Baloch insurgent groups have claimed responsibility for a string of deadly attacks on Pakistani military forces in Balochistan, reportedly killing at least 27 soldiers, according to The Balochistan Post. The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) said its Fateh Squad targeted a military transport bus in Kalat's Nimargh Cross area, killing 27 troops and injuring several others. The bus was reportedly ferrying personnel from Karachi to Quetta. BLA spokesperson Jeeyand Baloch stated that civilians, including qawwali performers on board, were not intended targets, though Dawn reported three civilian deaths, including two qawwals. In another incident, the BLA claimed to have killed two soldiers and injured seven with a remote-controlled IED in Quetta's Hazarganji area. The Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) also announced two separate operations. On Tuesday, it said an IED blast in Kalat's Khazina area killed four soldiers. On Wednesday, it claimed to have ambushed a military unit in Awaran's Gujro Kor area, killing six, including Major Syed Rab Nawaz Tariq from Muzaffarabad. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Later, a sniper unit fired upon a nearby military convoy, forcing a retreat The BLF denied state media reports that three of its "fighters" were killed, alleging that Pakistani forces may have staged fake encounters. Balochistan has witnessed a decades-long insurgency by separatist groups seeking independence from Pakistan, with Islamabad claiming the rebellion has been largely suppressed -- a claim challenged by continued militant violence.
