Government Asks Twitter to Block Fake 'PMO India' Accounts; Site Fails to Respond

Government Asks Twitter to Block Fake ‘PMO India’ Accounts; Site Fails to Respond is a news report published in Economic Times on 23 August 2012. The article covers a dispute between the Government of India and Twitter over parody and fake accounts impersonating the Prime Minister’s Office. Sunil Abraham is quoted on the broader implications of government blocking orders issued to social media platforms.

Article Details
Full Text
Context and Background

Article Details

📰 Published in:: Economic Times
📅 Date:: 23 August 2012
📄 Type:: News Report
👤 Author:: Not specified
🔗 Original URL:: Not available online

Full Text

A standoff between the government and microblogging service Twitter that has got India's online community up in arms, continues, as Twitter is still to act on India's requests to block some of the fake 'PMO India' accounts.

India's Minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal said, "Twitter has not responded to our requests in a satisfactory manner. The fake accounts are still there. The government of India is contemplating what action should be taken against Twitter and this will be announced as soon as we have finalised our response."

Sibal further added that the government received a response from the US Department of Justice, which also agreed that the content on the sites India sought to ban was inappropriate.

Twitter's operating code allows for parody accounts to be allowed as long as such accounts clearly identify as parody. The accounts in question - including @Indian_pm, @PMOIndiaa, @dryumyumsingh, @PM0India - do so.

Unlike other popular parody accounts of world leaders, though, some of these accounts make no attempt to 'spoof' tweets from the Prime Minister. The user of the @PM0India handle, with over 11 thousand followers, has changed their handle to @thehinduexpress, and tweeted "When I've to parody PM, I'll use the other a/c and RT that. For countering media and Congress, this ID will be used. To hell with censorship."

An email by ET to Twitter Inc, received no response at the time of going to press. However, news agency PTI quoted sources saying that Twitter has communicated to the PMO that it would be locating the "unlawful content". "India is important to us and we would like to have clearer communication in these matters in future," PTI quoted Twitter as saying. Official spokesperson for Indian Prime Minister's Office Pankaj Pachauri confirmed that Twitter is looking into the matter.

Over the past few days, the government has blocked around 300 websites which it blames for spreading rumours that triggered the exodus of people from the North East from several cities. Google and Facebook on Tuesday told ET they were working with India in removing content which can incite violence.

"There is clear evidence that these social networks have caused harm and disruption. However, they need to be clearer about the way they go about blocking sites and other links. The block order contained around 20 accounts and over 80 YouTube videos. It also had several mainstream media reports and a few Pakistani sites," Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society said.

Analysts do not rule out the possibility that Twitter itself will be blocked in India if it does not act.

Context and Background

The events described in this article occurred during a period of heightened government concern about online rumours and misinformation in India. In August 2012, reports and social media messages triggered panic among migrants from India’s North-Eastern states living in cities such as Bangalore and Pune, leading to a mass exodus. In response, the government ordered the blocking of hundreds of websites and social media accounts that it claimed were spreading inflammatory or misleading information.

The controversy raised broader questions about intermediary liability, platform responsibility, and the transparency of government blocking orders. Sunil Abraham’s remarks in the article highlight the lack of clarity surrounding the scope and implementation of these blocking directives, including the fact that government orders sometimes included mainstream media reports alongside allegedly harmful content.

The debates that emerged during this episode foreshadowed later policy disputes in India over platform regulation, intermediary liability, and the powers of the government to order content takedowns under the Information Technology Act.