India’s Stricter AI Social Media Regulations Raise Censorship Concerns

India has implemented sweeping new regulations targeting synthetic media and AI-generated content across digital platforms, raising significant concerns among digital rights advocates who warn of potential overreach and automated censorship.

The rules, which came into effect recently, transfer control “decisively away from users,” according to Apar Gupta, a prominent digital rights expert. He notes that under this framework, “grievance processes and appeals operate on slower clocks,” potentially leaving users with limited recourse when their content is flagged or removed.

One of the most troubling aspects of the new regulations, critics argue, is that most internet users are not informed when authorities order their content to be deleted. “It is automated censorship,” digital rights activist Nikhil Pahwa told AFP, highlighting concerns about transparency in the enforcement process.

The regulations require digital platforms to deploy automated tools designed to prevent the spread of illegal content, including forged documents and sexually abusive material. However, experts question the technical feasibility of such measures, particularly regarding the requirement to add “unique identifiers” to synthetic content.

“Unique identifiers are un-enforceable,” Pahwa explained. “It’s impossible to do for infinite synthetic content being generated.” Gupta echoed these technical concerns, noting, “Metadata is routinely stripped when content is edited, compressed, screen-recorded, or cross-posted. Detection is error-prone.”

The new framework fundamentally changes how responsibility is allocated in the digital ecosystem. “Users must declare if content is synthetic, and platforms must verify and label before publication,” said Gupta, explaining how the rules shift responsibility “upstream” from users to the platforms themselves.

A joint report by the US-based Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) and the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) warns that the laws “may encourage proactive monitoring of content which may lead to collateral censorship.” The analysis suggests platforms will likely err on the side of caution, potentially removing legitimate content to avoid penalties.

The regulations define synthetic data in broad terms as information that “appears to be real” or is “likely to be perceived as indistinguishable from a natural person or real-world event.” Critics argue that such expansive definitions create risk for creative expression.

“Satire, parody, and political commentary using realistic synthetic media can get swept in, especially under risk-averse enforcement,” Gupta warned, pointing to how the parameters for content takedown are broad and potentially subject to interpretation that could limit legitimate forms of expression.

The regulatory push comes as AI tools have become widely accessible, enabling what the CSOH report describes as “a new wave of online hate facilitated by photorealistic images, videos, and caricatures that reinforce and reproduce harmful stereotypes.”

A recent high-profile incident underscored these concerns when Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok generated controversy in January after users manipulated it to create millions of sexualized images of women and children by altering online images of real people.

Pahwa acknowledged the government’s need to address these issues, saying, “The government had to act because platforms are not behaving responsibly.” However, he criticized the approach, adding bluntly that “the rules are without thought.”

The situation highlights the complex challenge facing governments worldwide as they attempt to regulate rapidly evolving AI technologies while balancing concerns about harmful content against the potential for overregulation and censorship. As India implements these rules, the digital rights community continues to monitor their impact on free expression and content moderation practices across platforms.