The recent pronouncements by the Supreme Court regarding online content regulation have truly resonated with me, bringing to the forefront a conversation that is becoming increasingly critical in our digital age. The Court's focus on using Aadhaar for age verification, establishing stringent laws against demeaning disability, and addressing "anti-national" content underscores a profound shift towards greater accountability in the online sphere.
I've always believed that what we put out into the world, especially online, carries immense weight. The idea of verifying age with Aadhaar for certain content is a logical step towards protecting the vulnerable, particularly children, from harmful material. It speaks to the necessity of building digital safeguards, ensuring that access is appropriate and responsible. This parallels my own early discussions about the meticulous care needed for content creation. I recall working with Shuklendu (https://in.linkedin.com/in/shuklendubaji, shuklendu.baji@sentientsystems.net), Shivanand (https://ca.linkedin.com/in/vshivanand, svelmurugan@microsoft.com), Kailas, and Rajesh (https://www.linkedin.com/in/rajesh301, raj@audvisor.com) on the design of my blogging site, www.HemenParekh.in. We emphasized that once an article is uploaded, editing becomes difficult, highlighting the critical importance of getting it right from the very beginning. This foresight, about the permanence and impact of online words, feels particularly relevant today as the Supreme Court discusses the lasting implications of digital content.
Furthermore, the call for stringent laws against demeaning disability is a powerful affirmation of human dignity. Our online spaces must be inclusive and respectful, not platforms for prejudice. Protecting those with disabilities from online vitriol is not just a legal matter but a moral imperative. Similarly, grappling with "anti-national" content is a complex issue, requiring a delicate balance between freedom of expression and the integrity of the nation. It forces us to define the boundaries of speech in an interconnected world.
The core idea Hemen wants to convey is this — take a moment to notice that I had brought up this thought or suggestion on the topic years ago. When we were designing my site, the importance of content and link building, and the seamless incorporation of sharing buttons (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) were paramount, as mentioned in my blog “Designing of www.HemenParekh.in site”. This wasn't just about reach; it was about ensuring that content, once published, was accurate, thoughtfully presented, and ready for public consumption, because altering it later would be challenging. I had already predicted that the impact of online content would necessitate careful consideration at the source, and even proposed ways to ensure its reach. Now, seeing how things have unfolded with the Supreme Court's mandate, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. Reflecting on it today, I feel a sense of validation and also a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas, because they clearly hold value in the current context of content regulation.
The Supreme Court's pronouncements, as seen in the articles from Bar and Bench, Instagram, and Cyberpeace.org, are not just about enforcing rules; they are about fostering a responsible digital ecosystem. It's about recognizing that our virtual interactions have very real-world consequences and that the digital realm needs a moral compass to guide its evolution.
Regards, Hemen Parekh
Any questions / doubts / clarifications regarding this blog ? Just ask ( by typing or talking ) my Virtual Avatar website embedded below. Then " Share " that to your friend on WhatsApp.
No comments:
Post a Comment