Read on Twitter
Twitter routinely blocks, censors, amplifies or promotes online content, which is *integral* to it's functioning. So, why is this particular case so important? A rambling thread. 
https://twitter.com/divijualsuspect/status/1356915335367069696
https://twitter.com/divijualsuspect/status/1356915335367069696
This is hardly the first time Twitter has refused to comply with 'the law of the land'. The righteous indignation of the ruling party aside, take a look at Twitter's transparency reports - by its own admission, its compliance rate on *legal demands* for content restriction is 18%
There could be many reasons for this non-compliance. Due to a mix of corporate practices and vague laws, we don't really know why Twitter chooses this way or that.
Which is the *fundamental problem* with online content moderation today. Decisions of tremendous consequence are taken in complete secrecy and we are reliant on a for profit American company to stand up for our constitutional freedoms.
To an extent, this is because of vague and terrible laws. But the platforms themselves are at fault. There has been a persistent and endemic lack of transparency in how Twitter operates (still better than FB lol), and that it has paid such little heed to these issues is shameful.
Moreover, there is jarring dissonance in the attention and care that Twitter takes in content moderation decisions in India, as compared to, say, the USA. While issues of transparency are common across jurisdictions, its clear that some markets matter more than others.
Which brings us to this moment. Twitter refusing to comply so publicly with a Government order in a high profile case is forcing the government's hand. If the case goes to court, the government case *should* fail (one never knows nowadays).
Even so, the legal consequences of this action may be limited, and might only apply to this narrow and specific context. This is because the secret and unaccountable process under S.69A has the weight of the Supreme Court's Shreya Singhal judgement behind it.
The Government, meanwhile, is acting like a petulant child, perhaps because it is still wary of judicial review. So, its threatening Twitter by dangling new regulations (intermediary guidelines), withdrawing affection (by using Koo) and generally throwing a public tantrum.
Ultimately, however, there needs to be a larger public conversation about what ceding control of spaces of democratic discussion to private platforms implies, what should be the scope of the government's legitimate power to censor online speech and most importantly ...
How we should regulate industrial-scale content moderation for ensuring equity, transparency and accountability. Contrary to internet libertarians, we *do* need to censor, and the government does need a say in these actions, for eg. to protect communities from hate speech.
