Mediaboss Marketing

On Tuesday, Twitter announced that it had filed suit against the Indian government alleging that it interpreted a suite of 2021 laws too broadly when ordering the company to censor dissident users in the country. The lawsuit comes in response to increased pressure from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which in recent weeks has ordered Twitter to block the posts and accounts of dissidents. According to CNN, a source familiar with the suit said that the company will attempt to show that the government's orders "demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate."

The 2021 regulations Twitter is now fighting gave India's government the ability to demand that social media companies block certain posts or accounts in the country. Further, the Indian government has required social media companies to locate their compliance officers within the country so that they can be held criminally liable if the company fails to comply with government orders.

While Twitter has complied with orders, the suit marks a major act of resistance against the Indian government's calls to censor dissident content. In 2021, WhatsApp filed a similar suit, attempting to prevent the government from forcing the company to make all messages "traceable" upon request. That order, according to the company, would "severely undermine the privacy of billions of people who communicate digitally[.]" WhatApp's suit is still ongoing.

Twitter's suit highlights an important issue faced by social media platforms: What to do when local laws demand they participate in politically-motivated censorship? Increasingly, censorious governments are attempting to deputize tech companies to do their dirty work for themforcing companies to censor, block, or even track the whereabouts of government critics. While these companies may have values which marginally attempt to protect free speech, oppressive governments often coerce tech companies into collaborating.

Governments all around the world have enlisted tech companies to carry out local censorship missions. In 2024, the European Union's Digital Services Act will take effect, forcing tech companies to sharply regulate their platforms. The legislation requires companies to take down content deemed as hate speech, or disinformationtwo broad categorizations that can easily morph into broad state censorship. In Germany, hate-speech laws require companies like Twitter to report users to law enforcement. As one Twitter spokesperson said, the law "forces private companies into the role of prosecutors by reporting users to law enforcement even when there is no illegal behaviour."

While the threat of criminal liability for employees (India-based executives found guilty of violating censorship orders could face up to seven years in prison) might prevent companies from outright refusing to comply with censorious regulations, lawsuits like Twitter's are a clear step in the right direction.

However, the future increasingly appears to offer social media companies a choice between participating in government-mandated censorship and surveillance, or ceasing operations entirely in those countries. The first entails participating in considerable injustice, the other could involve reducing their customer base by billions.

Read the original post:
India Wants Twitter To Participate in Government Censorship - Reason

On Monday, several activists wore t-shirts emblazoned with the question Where Is Peng Shuai? to a match at Wimbledon in order to raise awareness about the Chinese tennis star. Peng has been absent from international media following her forced disappearance, forced re-appearances, and forced retirement in the wake of a sexual assault allegation against former Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli that she posted last November. Peng won a Grand Slam title at Wimbledon in 2013, but discussion of the injustice against her was unwelcome at the tournament this week. As Emine Sinmaz from The Guardian reported, the activists were confronted by Wimbledon security guards who warned them not to approach anyone at the venue:

Will Hoyles, 39, one of the campaigners, said: We came trying to raise a bit of awareness but Wimbledon have managed to make it worse for themselves by harassing us

They were asking loads of questions about what we were going to do, why we were here, you know, what wed already done etc. And we told them wed just been wandering around and wed spoken to a few people and thats when they seemed to get quite suspicious.

He said that the staff told them they should not approach anyone to talk to them. They said repeatedly the club doesnt like to be political, he added. [Source]

Despite citing political neutrality to justify tamping down the show of support for Peng Shuai, Wimbledon chose to ban 16 athletes from Russia and Belarus in April, in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine and Belarus support for the invasion. A similar controversy occurred in January, when the Australian Open ejected activists attempting to raise awareness about Peng Shuais disappearance, but that organization later reversed its decision under widespread public pressure. The Womens Tennis Association, one of the few major tennis organizations that has followed through on its supportive rhetoric of Peng, has canceled all of its events in China due to her continued absence from public life.

Off the court, other #MeToo cases are slowly making their way through Chinas judicial system. On June 22, a Chinese court sentenced Zhang Guo, a man accused of sexually assaulting a former Alibaba employee, to 18 months in prison. The former employee, surnamed Zhou, alleged that Zhang and her former manager, surnamed Wang, had pressured her into drinking too much alcohol at a client dinner last August and raped her later that night. After Zhou revealed her story on an internal corporate message board, Alibaba fired Wang, but then did an about-face and fired ten other employees for leaking Zhous accusation to the public. Zhou eventually lost her own job as well. This week, in the wake of Zhangs sentencing, Zhou called out inconsistencies in the police statement about the case. Huizhong Wu from the Associated Press reported on Zhous online post criticizing Wangs lenient judicial treatment:

Zhou criticized the official police account for turning her manager from someone who objectively has criminal intention, a rapist with actual criminal intentions, into a good boss caring for his drunk female subordinate.

And as for me? I have become a slut who is falsely accusing the male boss that she was carrying on with, she continued.

[] She wrote that her former manager had stolen her ID card to get the hotel to make him a key for her room, asking the staff to list him as a fellow traveler. She also said that police had concluded she could not express herself clearly when the front desk called to get her consent for giving him a key.

He voluntarily cancelled his taxi on the app, carried my stolen ID card, went back to the hotel and added himself to my room, sexually violated me, she told the AP, elaborating on her post. All these things show that not only did he intentionally try to rape, but also he committed a criminal act.

A police statement last August said that Wang had the key made with Zhous consent and that he had her ID card, without saying how he had gotten it. [Source]

Two days after Zhang was sentenced to prison, a four-hour public hearing for a sexual assault case involving the leader of another powerful Chinese tech company took place in the U.S. The victim, Liu Jingyao, has accused Liu Qiangdong, the billionaire founder of Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com, of raping her after a dinner and drinks party in 2018. At the time, Liu Jingyao was an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota. The hearing revolved around a motion to add punitive damages against Liu Qiangdong and JD.com, and the official jury trial is scheduled to begin on either September 26 or October 3. In a recent overview of the case published by a WeChat account supportive of womens rights, friends and supporters of Jingyao who attended her hearing shared more details about the trial, and criticized the double standards applied to male and female behavior in sexual assault cases:

In the court of public opinion, victims are on the receiving end of boundless scrutiny and mistrust. Why dont we ask Liu Qiangdong, or the person who organized the event, why a dozen middle-aged men would invite a young twenty-something woman to a drinking party? Why did Liu Qiangdong bring Jingyao to his villa in the first place? Liu Qiangdong is a married man, so why wasnt he more circumspect about his words and behavior? People tend to instinctively come up with excuses to justify the behavior of rich and powerful men. But as a woman, unless you happen to think like a perfectly rational automaton, people will tend to exaggerate the irrational aspects of your behavior. [Chinese]

This week, similar public vilification was heaped on Yu Xiuhua, a woman born with cerebral palsy who has become famous for her poems about love, sexuality, disability, and female identity. In a Weibo post (deleted two hours after it was published on Wednesday), she accused her estranged husband Yang Zhuce of domestic violence, alleging that he physically assaulted her multiple times in the course of their two-month marriage, after she asked him if he was having an affair with another woman. While some of Yus fans were sympathetic or outraged on her behalf, other netizens criticized her for being an attention-seeker, alleged that she had it coming, or made her the target of online bullying and death threats. The author of a WeChat post archived by CDT detailed how women who suffer sexual violence often receive harsher public scrutiny and criticism than their male abusers:

This has become a common practice online. When a woman suffers domestic abuse, the first question people ask is, What did she do [to provoke it]?

In the absence of other evidence, the mind conjures up various and vilifying possibilities:

Did the man find out that their child wasnt his?

Was she mean to her in-laws?

Was she too bad-tempered?

This is particularly true in the case of Yu Xiuhua, a headstrong, high-profile woman with many enemies. Some will find it easy to understand why a man might beat her: theyll say she had it coming, she brought this humiliation on herself, she knew the risks and went into it with her eyes wide open.

Youre old, disabled, and uglywhy would you think such a young man could actually love you?

The heartless domestic abuser has thus far avoided the storm, while Yu Xiuhua, the one who was beaten, finds herself in the eye of the storm, the object of public censure. [Chinese]

Translation by Cindy Carter.

The rest is here:
#MeToo Cases Weather Censorship, Suppression, and Victim-bashing - China Digital Times

Greg Tobin is the Digital Strategy Director for the Canada Strong & Proud Network.

Imagine a Canada where every single thing you say online was watched, checked, and possibly censored by the government. Your text messages, Facebook posts, and comments on YouTube videos all of it monitored to ensure your speech is safe.

It sounds outrageous, right? Totalitarian and gross. Now, what if I told you that the government was just caught planning for it?

Federal Heritage Minister, Pablo Rodgriguez, fresh off spearheading two other censorship bills, C-11 and C-18, has been caught planning his greatest feat yet to censor all electronic communications within Canada. Going all-in against freedom of speech has become a pattern for this government it seems.

Minister Rodgriguez recently appointed a 12-person expert advisory group and commissioned them to come up with a plan on how to tackle misinformation among other things.

The group came back with some outrageous suggestions that involve monitoring and regulating all communications in Canada, including text messages, for the purpose of combating misleading political communications, which we all know is a liberal dog-whistle for information, the government doesnt like.

The proposal is sweeping and leaves nothing out. The advisory group suggested including all your private communications your texts, phone calls, Facebook posts, AirBnB chats, reviews left on Amazon products, images posted to Instagram, TikTok videos any and all of it could land you a fine, or be shut down online if the government doesnt like it.

Imagine youre making a phone call and you start talking about the latest government scandal and then the call just drops.

Or if youre trying to send a text to your friends about a meetup for a protest, and the texts just wont send.

Or youre trying to get a t-shirt made up as part of a campaign effort, and the manufacturer says he received a notice from the government that the designs you sent him constitute harmful speech.

Its insane that the government and their advisory committee would suggest this kind of invasion into our lives. A Justin-vasion of your privacy if you will. It makes one think of the situation in Hong Kong, where the government there made open dissent against the Chinese Communist Party illegal.

Do you trust anyone in this government, much less a group of unelected bureaucrats to be able to fairly, justly, or wisely decide what counts as misinformation?

It also leaves us asking a hundred and one questions about how they will go about doing this, and what kind of measures they will take to ensure that all communications are accounted for.

VPNs, for example, allow Canadians to ensure their online activity is kept private from hackers and spying entities online. It also allows you to trick your Netflix into thinking youre American so you can get access to an entirely different library of content. Will the government ban them?

What about encrypted social media apps, like Signal or WhatsApp? Both are popular among journalists to ensure their work is kept private from prying eyes. Will the government ban the use of them? Forcing you to do all your communicating over one kind of messaging app that you know is being watched?

Will they force Canadians to use only one kind of web browser they can easily manipulate?

Will they do something similar to what exists in China and create a firewall around the entire Canadian internet? Blocking access to certain parts of websites, or whole websites together like Wikipedia, Twitter or Facebook, if the content on those pages goes against government dogma?

If they are as serious as they seem in this report everything is on the table.

And to top it all off the governments plan includes the appointment of a Chief Internet Censor. Who would have the power to levy fines and issue takedowns of the so-called harmful content

Selfie while youre at the gym? Harmful body standards: censored.

Argument with family over Facebook? Cyberbullying: censored.

Teasing a friend about his solar panels on Twitter? Climate Disinformation: censored.

Meme about the Prime Minister in your WhatsApp group chat? Hate speech: censored.

The goal of course is to create a Canada where you have lost your ability to speak badly about this government, under the false guise of safety. The safety that the government refers to is for them to be safe and free from the criticisms of voters like you.

The governments plan is totalitarian. It is deeply and truly unCanadian.

The neutrality of our online world, free from the corruption of one political party or another, allows our democracy to thrive. This plan throws that neutrality out the window and could be used by any government going forward, of any political stripe, to clamp down on your right to free speech.

Lets all join together, and tell Trudeau to keep his corrupt hands off our internet.

Gregory Tobin is the National Content Manager for the Canada Strong & Proud network of pages. Working in graphic design, video design, social media management and much more. His career has seen him work on numerous political campaigns across the country.

Were asking readers, like you, to make a contribution in support of True Norths fact-based, independent journalism.

Unlike the mainstream media, True North isnt getting a government bailout. Instead, we depend on the generosity of Canadians like you.

How can a media outlet be trusted to remain neutral and fair if theyre beneficiaries of a government handout? We dont think they can.

This is why independent media in Canada is more important than ever. If youre able, please make a tax-deductible donation to True North today. Thank you so much.

The rest is here:
GUEST OP-ED: The governments latest totalitarian attempt to censor the internet | The Paradise News - The Paradise News

About the position

For a position as a PhD Candidate, the goal is a completed doctoral education up to an obtained doctoral degree.

The Department of Information Security and Communication Technology has a vacancy for a position as a PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (IE), in the cross-disciplinary field of cyber security. This is a researcher training position aimed at providing promising researcher recruits the opportunity of academic development in the form of a doctoral degree. The position is a part of a national effort to develop the Norwegian knowledge base in cyber security according to the directions given in the newly announced Norwegian strategy for digital security.

The workplace will be located close to NORCICS Center of Excellence in research-based innovation - The Norwegian Center for Cybersecurity for Critical Sector - hosted by NTNU and opportunities exist for close collaboration with the NORCICS consortium.

The positions working place is in on NTNUs campus in Gjvik.

Your immediate leader is Head of Department.

Duties of the position

Censorship is a huge challenge in many countries. For dictatorships we have the obvious of holding back all critical thinking from being published and suppress any opposition activities. And many countries are aiming for more and more control of the information sources available to the public both inside the country and outside of the country. There still exists several channels for uncensored information flow, but the attacks and efforts put into censoring increases by the day and there must be an evolution in improvements and new systems for censorship-resistant technologies.

This is good for privacy, but when there is a security incident and/or a police investigation there will be a need for performing digital forensics and investigation on compromised or confiscated equipment. So when laws are broken and there must be performed digital investigations there will be high demand for how to investigate such systems with the most effective methods. And this should happen without compromising the censorship-resistant technologies in general as we do not want to stop these anti-censor technologies from being used to fight for democracy in strongly censored countries. The digital investigators will also require deeper and deeper technical knowledge inside these areas and this knowledge should be used for improving investigation processes and methods, in addition to strengthening censorship-resistant technologies. We also see that machine learning is making a significant impact in all areas of research, therefore knowledge of the complex digital investigation area together with machine learning techniques will be an advantage.

The position will be addressing research challenges with the goal to improve the research area of censorship-resistant technologies. In addition, it is preferable to have strong interest in the areas of network anonymity principles, overlay networks, digital investigations, computational forensics, machine learning, and network forensics.

The research will be carried out under guidance of Associate Professor Lasse verlier.

This PhD is expected to collaborate closely with the researchers in the NTNU Digital Investigation Group and the new NORCICS center, and will be an integral part of the relevant research groups.

While this position has a defined roadmap and duties, both the roadmap and duties can be subject to significant changes depending on background, expertise and interest of the candidates, on research outcomes both in our group and in the field, and on needs arising in the research group.

Required selection criteria

You must have a professionally relevant background in at least two or more of the following fields: network anonymity, censorship-resistant technologies, dark nets, overlay networks, network security and network forensics.

Good written and oral English and Norwegian language skills. Applicants who do not master a Scandinavian language must provide evidence of good English language skills, written and spoken. The following tests can be used as such documentation: TOEFL, IELTS or Cambridge Certificate in Advanced English (CAE) or Cambridge Certificate of Proficiency in English (CPE).Minimum scores are:

The appointment is to be made in accordance with Regulations concerning the degrees ofPhilosophiaeDoctor (PhD)andPhilosodophiaeDoctor (PhD) in artistic researchnational guidelines for appointment as PhD, post doctor and research assistant

Preferred selection criteria

Personal characteristics

Emphasis will be placed on personal and interpersonal qualities.

We offer

Salary and conditions

As a PhD candidate (code 1017) you are normally paid from gross NOK 491 200 per annum before tax, depending on qualifications and seniority. From the salary, 2% is deducted as a contribution to the Norwegian Public Service Pension Fund.

The period of employment is 4 years with 25 % teaching duties.

Appointment to a PhD position requires that you are admitted to the PhD programme in inInformation Securitywithin three months of employment, and that you participate in an organized PhD programme during the employment period.

The engagement is to be made in accordance with the regulations in force concerningState Employees and Civil Servants, and the acts relating to Control of the Export of Strategic Goods, Services and Technology. Candidates who by assessment of the application and attachment are seen to conflict with the criteria in the latter law will be prohibited from recruitment to NTNU.

After the appointment you must assume that there may be changes in the area of work.

The position is subject to external funding.

It is a prerequisite you can be present at and accessible to the institution daily.

About the application

The application and supporting documentation to be used as the basis for the assessment must be in English.

Publications and other scientific work must follow the application. Please note that your application will be considered based solely on information submitted by the application deadline. You must therefore ensure that your application clearly demonstrates how your skills and experience fulfil the criteria specified above.

The application must include:

If all,or parts,of your education has been taken abroad, we also ask you to attach documentation of the scope and quality of your entire education, both bachelor's and master's education, in addition to other higher education. Description of the documentation required can befoundhere. If you already have a statement fromNOKUT,pleaseattachthisas well.

We will take joint work into account. If it is difficult to identify your efforts in the joint work, you must enclose a short description of your participation.

In the evaluation of which candidate is best qualified, emphasis will be placed on education,experienceand personal and interpersonalqualities.Motivation,ambitions,and potential will also countin the assessment ofthe candidates.

NTNU is committed to following evaluation criteria for research quality according toThe San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment - DORA.

General information

Working at NTNU

NTNU believes that inclusion and diversity is our strength. We want to recruit people with different competencies, educational backgrounds, life experiences and perspectives to contribute to solving our social responsibilities within education and research. We will facilitate for our employees needs.

NTNU is working actively to increase the number of women employed in scientific positions and has a number of resources topromote equality.

The city of Gjvikhas a population of 30 000 and is a town known for its rich music and cultural life. The beautiful nature surrounding the city is ideal for an active outdoor life! The Norwegian welfare state, including healthcare, schools, kindergartens and overall equality, is probably the best of its kind in the world.

As an employeeatNTNU, you must at all times adhere to the changes that the development in the subject entails and the organizational changes that are adopted.

A public list of applicants with name, age, job title and municipality of residence is prepared after the application deadline. If you want to reserve yourself from entry on the public applicant list, this must be justified. Assessment will be made in accordance withcurrent legislation. You will be notified if the reservation is not accepted.

If you have any questions about the position, please contact Associate Professor Lasse verlier, email lasse.overlier@ntnu.no. If you have any questions about the recruitment process, please contact HR,Katrine.rennan@ntnu.no.

If you think this looks interesting and in line with your qualifications, please submit your application electronically via jobbnorge.no with your CV, diplomas and certificates attached. Applications submitted elsewhere will not be considered. Upon request, you must be able to obtain certified copies of your documentation.

Application deadline: 29.08.22

NTNU - knowledge for a better world

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) creates knowledge for a better world and solutions that can change everyday life.

Department of Information Security and Communication Technology

Research is vital to the security of our society. We teach and conduct research in cyber security, information security, communications networks and networked services. Our areas of expertise include biometrics, cyber defence, cryptography, digital forensics, security in e-health and welfare technology, intelligent transportation systems and malware. The Department of Information Security and Communication Technology is one of seven departments in theFaculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering.

Deadline29th August 2022EmployerNTNU - Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyMunicipalityGjvikScopeFulltimeDuration TemporaryPlace of service Campus Gjvik

Continued here:
PhD Candidate in Censorship-Resistant Technologies job with NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY - NTNU | 300283 - Times Higher Education

The proposed Grievance Appellate Committee will lead to bias and violation of the principles of natural justice.

On June 6, the Union Government proposedamendmentsto theInformation Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021(IT Rules). As per the press release by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, these amendments are proposed to steer through the challenges and gaps that exist in the IT Rules.

The IT Rules of 2021 were brought in to bring a slew of reforms by replacing theInformation Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. It imposed various compliance regulations on social media intermediaries, from appointing a Grievance Redressal Officer to tracing the first originator of information as and when required by a judicial authority or by any competent authority defined in Rule 2(d) of theInformation Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for interception, monitoring and decryption of information) Rules, 2009.

It drew various criticisms from experts and social media intermediaries. Theyreasonedthat the rules would break the end-to-end encryption system since it mandated finding the first originator of a text. Also, the Ethics Code establishes anOversight Committee, which consists of a majority of persons from the executive branch of the State. This is problematic since the Executive will now play the role of the Judiciary, which can lead to arbitrariness and favouritism in the decision-making process.

The IT Rules of 2021 drew various criticisms from experts and social media intermediaries. They reasoned that the rules would break the end-to-end encryption system, since it mandated finding the first originator of a text. Also, the Ethics Code establishes an Oversight Committee, which consists of a majority of persons from the executive branch of the State.

Also read:SC refuses to pass effective order in Centres petition to transfer to apex court challenges to IT rules in high courts

It requires the setting up of an additional committee (a Grievance Appellate Committee) which will review the appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer. Rule 3(3) of the proposed amendment states that the chairperson and members of the committee shall be appointed by the Union Government. This aspect of the proposal is problematic on the ground that it would lead to arbitrariness in the decision-making process of the committee, and may also lead to favouritism. The committee will act as the final arbiter on the complaints made against any content that is present on Intermediaries and having a body that is filled with people appointed by the Executive branch can lead to bias in the order and violation of the principles of natural justice.

Rule 3(2) requires the intermediaries to respect the constitutional rights of the citizens. This is an unprecedented move by the Government since this is essentially akin to enforcing fundamental rights against private entities. This may lead to a flurry of petitions against intermediaries in the already overburdened courts of India.

The Rules establishing the Union Government as the final arbiter in complaints against content on social media and OTT platforms directly or indirectly goes against the ethos of our Constitution.

The establishment of the Grievance Appellate Committee by the government is on similar lines as the three-tierGrievance Redressal Mechanismwhich was proposed in the IT Rules of 2021, beforebeing stayedby the Bombay High Court last year. The third or the final tier in the above-mentioned mechanism was an inter-ministerial committee consisting of people majorly from the executive branch. There were alsoconcerns flaggedregarding the government being the final arbiter in deciding the validity of the content on social media or on over-the-top platforms.

The Draft proposals also reduce the time given to the Grievance Officer to act on the complaints made by users. In certain circumstances, it requires that the Grievance Officer must address the complaint within 72 hours of the receipt of the complaint. The stayed relevant provision of the IT Rules of 2021 currently provide 15 days to act on the complaints made to the Grievance Officer.

Also read:Social media, content moderation and free speech: A tussle

The IT Rules, 2021 are already underchallengebefore the Supreme Court in various petitions. These Rules invited flak from critics and observers on various grounds. As discussed above, some of their provisions were partially stayed by the Bombay High Court; theKeralaandMadrashigh courts, too, had stayed any coercive action by the Union Government under these Rules last year.

The Rules establishing the Union Government as the final arbiter in complaints against content on social media and OTT platforms directly or indirectly goes against the ethos of our Constitution. It goes directly against thefundamental right to free speech, since any opinion (or majority of them) which will be critical of the Government might be taken down by the committee appointed by the government. This will essentially make the government a judge in its own case. It is akin to the violation of one of the principles of natural justice:Nemo judex in causa sua.

Against this backdrop, bringing this amendment which is reminiscent of the stayed Rules, is an unfortunate step by the government. The proposed draft amendments could lead to censorship by the government. Content posted on social media platforms at times includes criticism of the establishment, which might not be very pleasing for the elected government. This amendment provides the government with the authority to adjudicate complaints made against the decision of the Grievance Officer, which is open to misuse. The Government has to make amendments to the present mechanism, where the independence in decision-making is in absentia.

Also read:Explained: Bombay High Court order partially stay new IT rules on plea by The Leaflet

In India, the Supreme Court acts as thesentinel qui viveby protecting our fundamental rights. It is imperative that the Supreme Court, which is entrusted with the quintessential duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, intervenes and protects the fundamental rights of the citizens.

Aarya Parihar is an undergraduate student of law at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.

See the original post here:
Draft Amendment to the IT Rules 2021 Smacks of Censorship - NewsClick