Farmer protests: X 'disagrees' with government order to block accounts in notable post-acquisition stance

X is unable to publish the executive orders due to legal restrictions, but says it believes that making them public is ‘essential for transparency’. Image: Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images
 
The Indian government’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has issued executive orders for X (formerly Twitter) to block 177 profiles linked to the ongoing farmer protests, ‘subject to potential penalties, including significant fines and imprisonment’, X added in a post.

X said it will withhold these accounts in India alone in compliance with the orders, but fundamentally disagrees with these actions and ‘maintains that freedom of expression should extend to these posts’.

“Consistent with our position, a writ appeal challenging the Indian government's blocking orders remains pending. We have also provided the impacted users with notice of these actions in accordance with our policies,” the company added.

X is unable to publish the executive orders due to legal restrictions, but says it believes that making them public is ‘essential for transparency’.

“This lack of disclosure can lead to a lack of accountability and arbitrary decision-making,” it said.

The suspended accounts include those of grassroot reporters, farm unionists and influencers.

“If you look at the history of Twitter, pre-acquisition, they have spoken up for freedom of speech—in fact, when the last farmer protests happened in 2021, they came out to say they disagreed with the orders and even reversed the action taken in certain cases,” says Prateek Waghre, executive director, Internet Freedom Foundation. “However, post-acquisition by Elon Musk, it does seem unexpected.”

When contrasted with the way other platforms operate in India, the fact that X took a bold stance is commendable, Waghre adds. “But you also have to weigh that in line with their actions.”

Earlier, Twitter would disclose the action taken or the URLs included in such orders in something called the Lumen Database, an independent project studying takedown notices and other legal removal requests of online content. In April last year, it stopped giving such disclosures, with no explanation.

“But again, it’s a contrast to the others—you never knew which accounts were suspended on Facebook, for instance, unless it was a prominent account and people noticed,” Waghre says.

In India, the order is a ‘worrying and continuing precedent’, he adds. “You’re effectively placing dissent in detention. We can expect to see more of this around the world, as governments are becoming more active in the volume of takedown orders they issue. We’re seeing a need to express control over this domain, especially for voices that are in opposition to the rule. And that’s a trend we should expect to see throughout the year.”