The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has told Meta to fix how its platforms recommend and amplify content, warning that skewed algorithms and poorly contextualised posts about public events risk stoking confusion and unrest. The advisory, dated October 10, arrives as protests over the Election Commission's handling of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls continue in Delhi, though the ministry has not linked the document to any single episode.
What the Advisory Demands
At the centre of the order is a concern that Meta's recommendation systems may be feeding users a narrow band of narratives rather than a balanced mix of credible information. The ministry has asked the company to review its ranking mechanisms so that misleading, manipulated or out-of-context material is not repeatedly pushed to audiences. It has also asked for faster internal processes to flag and escalate content capable of triggering public disorder, violence or widespread alarm.
Particular attention has been drawn to a familiar pattern in online misinformation: old footage, unrelated visuals or selectively edited clips presented as live coverage of unfolding events. The advisory also flags unverified claims about emergency measures, police action or official restrictions, and audio-visual material on law-and-order situations circulated without context that would help users judge its authenticity.
Legal Basis and Government Reasoning
MeitY has grounded its advisory in the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the due-diligence obligations placed on intermediaries under the IT Rules, 2021. Those rules require platforms to inform users about prohibited categories of content, including material likely to incite a cognisable offence against public order. Officials within the ministry have said the advisory follows reports from government agencies suggesting that Meta's algorithms were not treating competing narratives even-handedly, instead favouring certain types of content over others.
Meta has additionally been told to cooperate promptly with law enforcement and other authorised agencies, supplying information within the timelines the IT Rules prescribe. The company has been asked to act "with immediate effect" and report back on the steps taken.
A Contested Middle Ground
Government advisories of this kind sit in a legal grey zone. They are not binding orders backed by penalties in the way a formal directive under the IT Act would be, yet platforms rarely ignore them, given the broader regulatory leverage the ministry holds over intermediary status and safe-harbour protections. That ambiguity is precisely what digital rights groups find troubling.
Apar Gupta of the Internet Freedom Foundation has argued that the advisory functions as a continuing censorship directive despite lacking binding force, and that its language, referring to content shown "without adequate context" or circulated during periods of "heightened public-order sensitivity", is not anchored to any specific provision of the IT Act or its rules. He has called on the ministry to withdraw the advisory and on Meta to publicly disclose any takedowns or downranking carried out in response to it.
The episode underscores a recurring tension in platform governance: the difficulty of distinguishing between legitimate efforts to curb genuine misinformation and the risk that vague, discretionary standards could be used to shape public discourse around sensitive political moments. How Meta responds, and how transparently, will likely shape the next round of scrutiny from both regulators and civil society.