Twitter has lost liability protection in India, government says

This is an ongoing tussle with the very legality of these rules being questioned. It's too soon to say what "lost liability protection" actually means. Twitter's responses (or lack thereof) have been a pain to deal with for the government.

What's not clear to me is who will be held responsible on the part of Twitter for any complaints. Earlier, Twitter had provided a local contact, which was that of a lawyer, as the contact for complaints and grievance redressal. That wasn't sufficient since the lawyer was not an employee of Twitter (as required by the new rules). He also left that position soon after. Twitter India has a managing director (MD), Manish Maheshwari, who claimed recently that he was only managing the marketing side and is not responsible for content moderation or anything else that happens on the platform. He was also granted a stay by the Karnataka High Court (which is where Bengaluru/Bangalore is) from arrest in a case filed in another state in the north (UP, i.e., Uttar Pradesh). [1]

I personally don't think Twitter India will find people taking up the positions of Resident Grievance Officer, Nodal Officer and Chief Compliance Officer. These are currently open positions on the Twitter careers page. [2] Whoever takes these up could end up in jail, which could really be bad with a draconian law like UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) that allows people to be (arbitrarily) detained without recourse for very long durations. [3]

The new IT rules have also been challenged in court on a few different fronts. "Two of the government’s own legal advisers warned it that the new Information Technology (IT) Rules were beyond the scope of the law and required parliamentary approval." [4]

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/twitter-india-chief-wins...

[2]: https://careers.twitter.com/en/roles.html#location=careers-t...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Activities_(Preventio...

[4]: https://outline.com/hCC7yg

how would one even sort search results without bias?

Trump's friend is ruling India ,This guy will finish the Indian IT industry

The article misses some more context.

1. The escalation intensified after tweets by prominent ministers and fucntionaries of the ruling government were marked as "manipulated media" 2. The IT Ministers and opposition partys accounts were locked for copyright infringement. 3. The govt wants twitter to comply on removing content and users critical of govt policies.

[1] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/manipulated-media-de...

[2] https://www.news18.com/news/india/copyright-infringement-twi...

[3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/jg8pzp/india-wants-more-cont... https://restofworld.org/2021/how-india-fell-in-then-out-of-l...

As mentioned by others, Google does "manipulate" search results too, but it is a slightly less sensitive/emotionalized topic because Google's content (web pages) is very different from Twitter's (personal utterances). The question is: what does "neutral" even mean in this context?

The dichotomy between neutrality and manipulation is artificial, although I do see the underlying assumption that the output of any algorithm would be "neutral" whereas manual interference with its results would be "manipulation".

In reality, however, the boundary is fluid. Would an algorithm that automatically excludes certain sites be neutral, while excluding the same sites manually is considered manipulation? Is "apply keyword search, then apply blacklist" an algorithm or manual manipulation? On the other side, is an algorithm that automatically penalizes SEO-optimized (spam) sites neutral, even though a search term occurs much more frequently on that given site?