governance
India orders more internet shutdowns than any other country, according to digital rights groups, including long shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur and short ones during exams and protests. In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that indefinite shutdowns are not allowed and orders must be necessary, proportionate and published. Authorities say shutdowns stop rumours and violence; critics say they cut off payments, education and news.
Take a stance to see what people think.
Results open up once you've answered, so they don't sway you. 669 people have taken a stance so far.
Mark an argument convincing even if you took the other side. It shows which points persuade people across the divide.
Shutdowns should be a last resort, tightly limited.
With UPI, online classes and government services on phones, a shutdown cuts people off from money, school and help.
Shutdowns also block journalists and citizens from reporting what is happening, which can hide abuses.
Shutting down the whole internet to stop a few messages is disproportionate; targeted action against specific accounts is possible.
Authorities need the power to stop rumours spreading violence.
Fake videos and rumours spread on messaging apps have triggered riots and lynchings within hours; police cannot act fast enough on each message.
Shutting down mobile internet during exam hours has been used to stop paper leaks that affect lakhs of students.
Officials on the ground are best placed to judge a threat, and orders are already subject to review.
Whether shutdowns actually prevent violence, and what they cost. The evidence on effectiveness is mixed, while the costs to livelihoods, digital payments and access to information are large and fall on everyone in the area.
