Google Deleting Negative TikTok Reviews: Interference with Freedom of Expression

“If the liberty of Speech is removed, the dumb and silent we could also be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
Washington

Introduction:

Social media has become an extension of our lives beyond our surroundings and to the extent of knowing people round the world. Nowadays everyone has an account on social media like What’s App, Facebook, Instagram, etc. Though there are several ill-effects on the psychological of the people, they’re most addicted as they think that it’s a neighborhood of life that ensures entertainment to them. it’s become an important tool that connects people despite territorial distances.

Social Media has also become a neighborhood of communications where people can exercise freedom of speech and expression, share their thoughts, ideas, and knowledge. In recent times revolution has also been happening in social media platforms to hunt human rights and justice. Examples like the Arab Spring Revolution, Justice for George Floyd are the instances where media has played an important role. But this doesn’t confer the proper to talk or publish without responsibility on the citizens. There are certain reasonable restrictions on the proper to freedom of speech and expression. But it’s misused by some people that are the threats to a peaceful country. Many cybercrimes are happening only through social media. There must be sure regulations within the contents that are posted by the people for the interests of the general public at large.

Fake news associated with COVID-19, stories of Sushant Singh’s depression and trends like ‘George Floyd Challenge’ has been surfacing the platforms. Misinformation and faux news have far-rooted impacts on society.

The ongoing “TikTok” trend has increased tremendous enthusiasm in people. it’s started a replacement discussion because it questions the privileges of the proper to talk freely of discourse and articulation.

Each citizen has the proper to speak his/her emotions and views. Freedom of speech and expression includes the choice to expire and obtain data which additionally involves the chance to carry assessments. It also includes the choice to speak suppositions and perspectives at any issue through any medium, for instance, by talking, printing, books, motion pictures, plays, etc.

In the case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan¹ Ram it had been held that, on any problems with general concern, everybody has the proper to shape his opinion. People are permitted to condemn any arrangement, government work, then on transparently.

Also, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, states that “freedom of speech and expression is that the right which each individual has got to seek, receive and supply details also as rights, which also involves the proper of freedom to speech and expression and despite any sort of interference, through any media no matter platforms.²”

Freedom of Speech and Expression

The act of Google in clearing out the negative reviews and aiding within the revival of the social media platforms raises the grave question on the proper to freedom of speech and expression of the citizens. The legal proposition behind the difficulty has been long battled upon. The Supreme Court, within the case of ‘Indian Express v. Union of India’³ recognized free speech as a fundamental right. However, an equivalent isn’t an unfettered right. during a catena of judgements, reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19 itself, has been held to an important realization of the liberty guaranteed. the bounds imposed are for the larger purpose to make sure that the enjoyment of rights isn’t arbitrary or excessive, to affect the general public interest.

There is a limitation attached to the connotation of restrictions rather than the enjoyment of rights. There has got to be due care and deliberation behind the abridging of the rights to face true on the thought of proportionality. What must be kept in mind is that the nature of the proper being infringed, the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to remedy.

The continuous attempt should be towards analyzing the impact upon the elemental rights as put against the need to limit the liberty. There has got to be a correct balance struck between the rights, liberties and interests of persons keeping in mind the aim behind the restrictions imposed.

The years of debate have devised the premise for adjudication. Free speech has always been related to this enigma of discourse and conversation. The instance of Google removing the reviews is not any exception either. during a country, where women aren’t given a social station adequate to that of men, where crime against women are on the increase ever since, where victims of rape are burnt to death to eradicate witness, media influencers can’t be reasonably expected to market such acts and attitude which could harm the social well-being. The outrage against Siddique’s video cruising the web was correct and need to be denounced.

Google intervenes with Free Speech

Google perhaps being mindful of its business and policies thereof had assumed it subservient to intervene within the instant case. In an effort to urge things back on target for the platform, all negative reviews were removed. The underlying question remains, was that legally permissible and for what was it done? While the community at large arraigned the videos of bad taste and culture on the platform on what authority did Google interfere with our constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression? Where were we wrong demand a ban of such filthy and delirious application?

Conceivable, the act of Google is often accepted on no legal or moral grounds. As a responsible citizen of the country, I pride oneself within the upsurge against the media platform for the bogus content that had been portrayed. The thousands of reviews were only a mirrored image of the right-minded believe condemning such mucky actions. What appears herein, is that the conscience of the massive public, the underlying public interest and our fundamental freedom are compromised upon within the guise of maintaining the policy of the corporate.

Notably, this initiates a present-day jurisprudence about freedom of speech of expression as weighed against the terms and policies of a corporation. Nevertheless, judging on the settled premise, the act of Google can in no way be slot in the test of proportionality as has been hailed across jurisdictions.

Fight between YouTube and TikTok and Reasons for Lowest Ratings Ever

When our country is struggling to urge obviate this infectious disease i.e. COVID-19, there arises a replacement problem YouTube vs Tik-Tok. This has been a never-ending war on the web where the content creator of every platform started roasting one another. Where our country’s policymaker is on their thanks to make the virtual world safer, reliable, and in charge of customers; there we could find a digital battle aroused which has created hatred among one another. Initially, it all started when a well-liked Tik-Tok star Faisal Siddique made a video where he threw an acid [water] on a lady causing scars and bruise on her face.

Then the entire fiasco started when a well-liked Youtuber Carry Minati (real name Ajay Negar) who is understood for creating funny videos and roasting the people in his channel created a spoof video name “YouTube vs Tik-Tok-The End Game” to roast Amir Siddique another popular Tik-Tok star. Gradually this video has reached its pinnacle by becoming the fastest 2 million liked videos and were viewed by 78 million people in India. But however, the streaming application had to delete the video thanks to many reports of defaming a private.

This has enlarged the fans of Carry Minati starting a trend called #JusticeForCarry. Twitter was flooded with comments against the ban of the Tik-Tok app and a few popular stars. Many users and non-user of Tik-Tok started rating the app with one star and began giving negative reviews in google play store which resulted within the decrease of star from 4.7 to 1.3 during a few days. so as to rescue this controversial Chinese application, the tech giant, Google had removed around 8 million bad and negative reviews from the play store.

India’s Stand on Representative Democracy

India has been a “Representative Democracy”. this suggests every citizen can express themselves freely. Criticism and condemnation are part and parcel of democracy. Freedom of expression may be a basic right and therefore the bulwark of a democratic government. This freedom is important for the right functioning of democracy.

Liberty is merely possible with Freedom of speech and expression. It opens up-channel for free of charge discussion of issues through any medium. that has by word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures, films, movies, etc. Freedom of expression which may be a fundamental right enables the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and knowledge and thus allows members of society to make their own opinions on problems with public importance.

The phrase ‘speech and expression’ utilized in 19(1) (a) features a broad connotation. Article 19(1) (a) also covers the proper to color, sing, dance, or to write down poetry or literature. this is often because the common basic characteristic of these activities is freedom of speech and expression. The expression “freedom of speech and expression” includes the proper to speak it through any available media whether it’s print or electronic or audio-visual, like advertisement, movie, article or speech, etc. Also, this freedom allows us to speak and circulate one’s view or opinion with none interference.⁴

Significance of Reviews

Reviews are a necessary aspect of vigilance as they assist in improving goodwill, increasing outreach, giving fundamental inputs, and influencing choices of consumers. It pushes a private from the reviewer’s stage and motivates him to enhance his experience to a completely new phenomenon.

It is presently one among the essential practices in business to request input from the consumers to serve them better afterward. Reports remarkably affect one’s decision. Citizens trust reviews because it is an individual’s perception. Legal reports are the simplest approach to watch the

business because it assists with deciding if the consumers are deciding on the right decision or not. A customer’s option to download an application altogether relies upon the application’s updates and reviews.

An ongoing research had indicated that practically half the rational consumers wouldn’t consider downloading any application whose reviews are below 3-stars. That goes to 85% for an application having a 2-star rating. The survey shows that around 77% of citizens wish to survey before choosing to download any free application. As Google may be a dominant web server in India also as throughout the planet, citizens are happy to offer their trust and validity to Google reports for providing reviews from confided in peers.

Matt Southern, the editor of program Journal, on 25/06/2020 stated that “85% of the consumers think consumer reviews older than 3 months aren’t reliable. This issue emerges when reports are controlled and are the idea of application quality and consumers depend on it to be credible. It analyses with the goal to supply consumers with an optimal amount of satisfaction.”

Reasons Behind Repercussions of TikTok

The Director of the National Commission of girls took cognizance of the difficulty and said in an Interview that she accepts that TikTok should be prohibited within the Country as aside from the shocking recordings, it’s making a basis for an unhealthy life. it had been even said by the Madras High Court in April 2019, that TikTok was publishing and promoting Pornography as children were helpless against exposure to the sexual substance and different complaints being raised on its Drug promotion act. Apple and Google brought down TikTok from their play store separately. However, the ban was lifted after 3 weeks on the bottom that India must counter the matter separately compared to the United States’ Online Privacy Protection Act, 1998 for the safety of youngsters online. Thus, within the absence of substantive cyber law in India, TikTok was back on Google Play and App store.

Thanks to this reason citizens had to stay calm and face the results of the appliance in India. But, after Faisal Siddiqui’s video, citizens became furious and an enormous number of citizens used this opportunity to reveal the issues and threats of the appliance. TikTok was accused of facilitating content that promotes sexism, viciousness against women, gender dominant society, religion-based separation, and faux news, etc. it’s also pertinent to notice that India faces a scarcity of appropriate laws and its awareness of going into court for redressal. On these grounds, citizens used the criticism technique to speak their views.

India was uninformed of the reviews which a consumer can give on the Play Store and App Store, which was achieved by a well thought of strategy. These components of reports and updates went through different stages on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. Thus, after realizing that there’s a stage to speak their perspectives, people started mass rating and reviewing. Nearly 8 Million posted new reviews on the play store. Some posted positive reviews while others posted negative reviews and shortly the App was declared unjust due to numerous reasons. it had been to not spam TikTok but to think about the importance of input of the general population and make it an important move.

The consequence was that during a short period, Tok-tok’s reviews tumbled from 4.5 to easily 1.2 stars. Even after such allegations, google didn’t mediate upon it or made any move against the app. On the opposite hand, it removed all the posts during that point while bringing back its past reports in 3 days. Different policies contradicted control of reviews by the designers of the business or application.

However now Google itself is controlling it. A representative said that it removed negative reviews as a restorative measure to spam abuse. It defended its action by explaining that few were made to post negative reviews for the appliance so Google interfered within the continuous TikTok controversy and removed all the negative remarks. it had been frequently said that TikTok didn’t engage the problems raised by the citizens through the appliance.

The member of Parliament for BJP, Maneka Gandhi declared that TikTok has not contemplated the criticism and declined to bring down unfavorable recordings and make risk for citizens who posted those clips. Google, by removing Tok-tok’s negative reports compromised the citizens’ Right to free speech and expression even within the world’s largest democracy. A development where the general population of the state had a just and lawful approach to speak their views and expression, their Freedom of Expression ensured to them, was named as Spam. We currently sleep in an era where citizens have the choice to appeal to the Hon’ble HC’s Judgment but didn’t get a chance to fight against the misuse of a mere application that’s devastating this generation. Google, during this case, has refused to believe the rights of the citizens and it numerous times had repudiated its policies.

The Delhi supreme court in October 2019 instructed Google Inc. to get rid of unknown posts stigmatizing artist Subodh Gupta. Google Inc. countered that conforming to the present request would influence freedom of speech and expression and can be against the general public interest. Google stated that it cannot eliminate the substance which it doesn’t possess or control. However, presently it repudiated its view by removing an enormous number of negative TikTok reviews which even consented to its policies. It didn’t bring down any certain report in handling the case. On the contrary, Apple’s application store strategy may be a secret for competitors.

In the case of Shreya Singhal v. UOI court held that “Art 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India states that India guarantees the proper to freedom of speech and expression to the people of India through the web too.”

Various Verdicts of the Courts

In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India⁵, the Supreme Court held that the establishment of the press to reinforce the interest of the general public by publishing the facts and opinions. The press plays a serious role within the electorate process in India. within the same manner, every people have an interest within the public in establishing the facts about an event or legislation or an app.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India⁶, the Supreme Court held that the liberty of speech and expression doesn’t have any geographical limit. it’s the proper of citizens to gather, exchange, and share their thought with others not only in India but also abroad. the proper freedom of speech and expression also evolved with the technology and means of expressing the views through electronic media.
In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms⁷, the Supreme Court held that the proper to receive and impart information in freedom of speech and expression also holds the liberty of opinions. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, the court held that everybody features a fundamental right to make opinions on any of the problems that are generally. during a democratic country, everyone has their own opinion and opinions may differ from person to person. One person needn’t agree on the opinion of others. The commercial information is additionally included under the proper to freedom of speech and expression. the proper to freedom of speech and expression through the web has also become a neighborhood of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion

Thus, the negative reviews that were deleted by Google are the violation of the proper to the liberty of speech and expression of the people and this is often moreover true and therefore the TikTok has been widely abused by the people. It the proper of the people to understand a few particular app and its reviews and ratings that were commented also are the proper to information of the others and even that can’t be violated.