Latest news with #CommunicationsDecencyAct
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
6 days ago
- Business
- First Post
Elon Musk's X can't push unlawful content citing 'safe harbour' clause: Indian govt to court
In a submission to the Karnataka High Court, the Centre maintained that Elon Musk's X can't push unlawful content in the name of 'free speech' and under the garb of the 'safe harbour' clause under the IT Act read more A 3D-printed miniature model of Elon Musk and the X logo are seen in this illustration taken January 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration On Thursday, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court that allowing the proliferation of unlawful content on social media in the name of 'free speech' endangers the country's democracy. According to The Times of India, the Centre accused Elon Musk's X, formerly known as Twitter, of attempting to escape accountability. The authorities noted that Musk's company is doing so by sheltering itself under the IT Act's 'safe harbour' protection, The Times of India reported. In the letter to the Karnataka High Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the constitutional protection to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) must not be misunderstood as absolute protection even of unlawful content. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Constitutional jurisprudence clearly differentiates between protected speech that contributes meaningfully to democratic discourse and unlawful speech that undermines societal stability and individual rights,' Mehta said in the letter, according to a report by the TOI. 'Safe Harbour is not a right but a privilege' The solicitor general noted that the 'Safe Harbour' provision in the IT Act is 'not an absolute right' but a 'privilege contingent upon strict adherence to statutory duties.' The statement from the Centre came after X moved the High Court seeking to restrain government departments from taking coercive action against the social media platform. 'Unlawful and unjustified orders harm the X platform and its ability to operate. The issuance of information blocking orders without following due process of law, and in violation of the IT Act and the Constitution, violates X's right to equality under Article 14 and detrimentally impacts its business," the Centre said in a written submission to the Karnataka High Court. 'Proliferation of what can be termed as unlawful content on social media platforms poses an unprecedented threat to public discourse, democracy and societal stability.' 'Social media intermediaries possess an unparalleled ability to amplify information instantaneously, without traditional barriers like language or geographical limitations, and thus carry significant responsibilities,' Mehta wrote in the submission. Why it matters The government's stance on the matter can have implications for all social media platforms operating in India. This also goes hand in hand with the calls to remove Section 230 of the US's Communications Decency Act, from which social media giants derive their immunity. In the submission, the government argued that X attempted to present 'safe harbour' as an absolute right, devoid of any corresponding duties. 'Such a stand fundamentally misconstrues the very basis of this legal protection. 'Safe harbour' is not a constitutional guarantee but a statutory privilege, specifically designed to foster responsible conduct,' the submission said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Centre said that social media platforms use 'amplification' mechanisms to push visibility of a particular type of view. 'The algorithms used by intermediaries actively curate and boost content, shaping public opinion and significantly influencing social harmony or disorder. This active role demands heightened accountability, necessitating robust regulation specifically tailored for social media, distinct from traditional media,' the submission reads. With inputs from agencies.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Illegal content on X endangers democracy, says government
Elon Musk (File photo) NEW DELHI: The Centre told Karnataka high court Thursday that allowing the proliferation of unlawful content on social media in the name of free speech endangered democracy, and accused Elon Musk-owned X of attempting to escape accountability by taking shelter under the IT Act's 'safe harbour' protection. Questioning the US-based company's locus standi to move an Indian HC for protection of fundamental rights, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the constitutional protection to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) must not be misunderstood as absolute protection for unlawful content. 'Constitutional jurisprudence clearly differentiates between protected speech that contributes meaningfully to democratic discourse and unlawful speech that undermines societal stability and individual rights,' it said. 'Safe harbour' not an absolute right, but a privilege contingent upon strict adherence to statutory duties: Govt It said the 'safe harbour' provision, which protects social media platforms from liability for content posed by their users, was a privilege available only to those internet intermediaries which were responsible. X had moved HC seeking to restrain govt departments from taking coercive action against it and its officials for the content on the microblogging site and said, 'Unlawful and unjustified orders harm the X platform and its ability to operate. The issuance of information blocking orders without following due process of law, and in violation of IT Act and the Constitution, violates X's right to equality under Article 14 and detrimentally impacts its business. ' In written submissions before HC, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said, 'Proliferation of what can be termed as unlawful content on social media platforms poses an unprecedented threat to public discourse, democracy and societal stability.' 'Social media intermediaries possess an unparalleled ability to amplify information instantaneously, without traditional barriers like language or geographical limitations, and thus carry significant responsibilities,' the law officer said. Advent of the internet, social media and digital intermediaries had fundamentally altered the character and scale of human communication, demanding a re-examination and suitable tailoring of constitutional standards, Mehta said, adding India's internet subscriber base had grown from 25 crore in 2013-14 to 97 crore in Sept 2024. The govt's stand that 'safe harbour' does not mean blanket immunity can have implications for all social media platforms. This also rhymes with the growing call for repeal of Section 230 of US's Communications Decency Act from which social media giants derive the immunity. The Centre said 'safe harbour' protection for internet intermediaries was not an unconditional entitlement but a privilege contingent upon strict adherence to statutory duties. While committing to full protection of the right to free speech, the govt said, 'The question raised by X cannot be examined merely from the prism of the person using this medium. 'The concept of 'safe harbour' inherently includes rigorous responsibilities, requiring intermediaries to promptly and effectively remove or disable unlawful content upon receiving notice. These safeguards are deliberately designed to balance innovation with accountability, ensuring intermediaries do not become platforms for unlawful activities.' The govt said X's attempt was to present 'safe harbour' as an absolute right, devoid of any corresponding duties. 'Such a stand fundamentally misconstrues the very basis of this legal protection. 'Safe harbour' is not a constitutional guarantee but a statutory privilege, specifically designed to foster responsible conduct,' it said. It told HC that X had confused itself with the play of Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act. It said Section 69A pertains explicitly to govt orders for blocking content with serious penal consequences for non-compliance whereas Section 79 deals with due diligence obligations to maintain 'safe harbour' protection. The Centre said X purposefully blurred the clear distinction to escape accountability for its statutory duties. It said social media platforms use 'amplification' mechanisms to push visibility of a particular type of view. 'The algorithms used by intermediaries actively curate and boost content, shaping public opinion and significantly influencing social harmony or disorder. This active role demands heightened accountability, necessitating robust regulation specifically tailored for social media, distinct from traditional media,' the Centre further said.
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
OnlyFans up for an $8 billion sale? Owner Leo Radvinsky hunts for new buyer after talks with LA group collapse
OnlyFans founder and sole owner, Leonid Radvinsky, is reportedly exploring the sale of the subscription platform for as much as $8 billion. According to the Wall Street Journal, Radvinsky recently resumed talks with potential new buyers after earlier negotiations with a group led by Los Angeles-based Forest Road Company failed to progress. Despite the platform's controversial content model, Radvinsky appears committed to moving forward with the sale, enlisting banks and holding talks with multiple parties. Radvinsky remains private while leading a billion-dollar business Radvinsky, who owns OnlyFans through its parent company, Fenix International, has remained largely out of the public eye. At age 43, he has never given a public interview and rarely attends industry events. Even colleagues are restricted from speaking due to tight non-disclosure agreements. His official website describes him as a tech entrepreneur, angel investor, and helicopter enthusiast, but does not reference OnlyFans — the platform that has significantly built his $4 billion net worth. If the $8 billion valuation is achieved, the sale would further establish Radvinsky as one of the wealthiest and least visible figures in the tech world. Financial success despite platform controversy OnlyFans has faced difficulties attracting traditional buyers, partly due to its reliance on adult content. However, its profitability is hard to ignore. Between 2019 and early 2024, Radvinsky earned nearly $1.3 billion in dividends, according to filings in the UK. In the fiscal year ending November 2023 alone, he reportedly received $472 million. From 2021 to 2023, his payouts from Fenix International surpassed $1 billion. Although OnlyFans briefly banned explicit content in 2021 due to concerns from financial institutions, the decision was quickly reversed. The company continues to operate under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects it from liability for content created by its 4 million users. OnlyFans' owner Leonid Radvinsky is actively pursuing a sale that could reshape the platform's future and further grow his tech empire. To stay updated on the stories that are going viral follow Indiatimes Trending.
NDTV
01-07-2025
- Business
- NDTV
Mysterious Billionaire Behind OnlyFans Empire In Talks To Sell The Site For $8 Billion: Report
Leonid Radvinsky, the elusive billionaire behind OnlyFans, is reportedly negotiating an $8 billion sale of the controversial yet highly profitable subscription platform, despite ongoing concerns about its adult content. Mr Radvinsky, sole owner of OnlyFans' parent company, Fenix International, was in discussions with a group led by Los Angeles-based Forest Road Company. However, those talks have stalled, and Mr Radvinsky is now engaging with another unnamed bidder seen as a stronger contender, per the Wall Street Journal. Last month, The Post reported that Leo Radvinsky quietly put OnlyFans on the market but struggled to attract buyers due to its controversial business model. Despite this, the billionaire who reaped nearly $1.3 billion in dividends from 2019 to early 2024 per British filings is pressing forward. Sources told the Wall Street Journal that he has recently enlisted banks and potential buyers, aiming to sell OnlyFans for up to $8 billion. Notably, OnlyFans is a cultural phenomenon and financial powerhouse driven by its explicit content and creator-driven model. At 43, the enigmatic owner Leo Radvinsky has never granted public interviews, seldom attends industry events, and has left only one widely circulated photo online. Even those who've worked with him are silenced by stringent nondisclosure agreements. Mr Radvinsky's official website portrays him as a company builder, angel investor, and aspiring helicopter pilot, omitting any mention of OnlyFans, despite it being the cornerstone of his estimated $4 billion fortune. A potential $8 billion sale of OnlyFans would solidify Radvinsky's status as one of the world's wealthiest and most elusive tech entrepreneurs, likely amplifying his philanthropic goals, per the WSJ. Leo Radvinsky, a US citizen who immigrated to Chicago from Ukraine as a child, studied economics at Northwestern University. He purchased OnlyFans in 2019. According to public records, he received $472 million in dividends from OnlyFans in the fiscal year ending November 2023. Between 2021 and 2023, his total payouts from Fenix International Ltd. exceeded $1 billion, based on UK financial filings. OnlyFans gained massive popularity during the COVID pandemic. In 2021, Mr Radvinsky temporarily banned explicit content due to financial institutions' hesitation to process related payments, but reversed the decision shortly after. The platform relies on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for legal protection, claiming it's not responsible for user-generated content since it doesn't produce the material itself. This protection applies to the platform's 4 million creators.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
01-07-2025
- Business Standard
Meta, TikTok can be sued by mother of teen killed while subway surfing
A lawsuit against wrongful death has been filed against Meta Platforms and ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, after a 15-year-old boy lost his life while 'subway surfing' on a moving train, Reuters reported. A New York state judge, Justice Paul Goetz, ruled on Friday that Norma Nazario, the mother of the deceased, can try to prove that both Meta and ByteDance 'goaded' her son Zackery into subway surfing by getting him addicted to platforms like Instagram and TikTok, where Zackery viewed content about 'dangerous challenges'. Meta and ByteDance have previously faced thousands of lawsuits, along with Snapchat, accusing the platforms of being addictive and causing harm to children, schools, and governments. Zackery Nazario died on February 20, 2023, after he and his girlfriend climbed on top of a Brooklyn-bound J train as it crossed the Williamsburg Bridge. According to Zackery's mother, a low beam struck him, causing him to fall between subway cars, which then ran over him. His mother also claimed that she found several videos related to subway surfing on her son's social media accounts. Meta, ByteDance term Zackery's death 'heartbreaking' While Meta and ByteDance seek immunity from user content under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act and the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, Justice Goetz ruled that Zackery's mother can try to prove her son was targeted because of his age. He wrote, 'Based on the allegations in the complaint. It is plausible that the social media defendants' role exceeded that of neutral assistance in promoting content, and constituted active identification of users who would be most impacted.' The Manhattan judge, however, dismissed her claims against New York City's Metropolitan Transit Authority, stating that common sense and 'the realities of life in this city' should have stopped Zackery from pursuing subway surfing. The report, citing data from the New York Police, noted that at least six people died from subway surfing in 2024.
