Irony of warnings is that they are mostly paid heed post their ignorance. Today information travels fast and social media has much to do with it. However let's look at the underbelly of this progress. Propaganda promotion, mis information web, mental health degradation, psychological manipulation of masses- ramifications are flourishing much to our ignorance. The undercurrent that connects all these seemingly unconnected consequences of social media use is the source of the concerned information. After all, social media hinges on social validation: in this paradigm, those endowed with the highest validation possesses the most power.

There has been a shift in the plain of democracy. One which existed in the nook and crannies of our neighbourhoods now vests in the comment sections of social media posts. Spurious butterfly effects and covert operations are in play though the social media and in this proprietor's of these social platforms are pawns moving upon the commands of big brother. If liberty meant anything at all it meant the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Once upon a time social media was a twin champion of democratic free speech and efflux of information. Social media gave us a space to exercise liberty. However that liberty is long gone. In the enigma of social media policy updates somewhere and somehow it has become a prisoner of state of contemporary times. It is now an extension of power of state, commanded and supervised to further its goal in the name of inoculating sovereignty. A necessary sham? The question remains open.

Liberty and freedom are not synonyms in legal parlance. Term 'Liberty' connotes a wider ambit than freedom. Free Speech- or as our constitution calls it, Freedom of Speech (Article 19)- is sine qua non to any healthy democracy. But in the abyss of social media much of what ought to be regulated is unregulated and much of what ought not be regulated is painstakingly regulated. As a result unpopular ideas are silenced and inconvenient facts are kept in dark.

Let's face it, contemporary social media is analogous to a state. A “Social State” as it is called in the academic circles; with own rules and policy and constitution and they even have their own extra judicial self- regulatory institutions. They have their own free speech codes, have established a parallel regime of speech regulation along with the state. Not only that they act as a judges of the legality of users content, a function which only judiciary is supposed to perform in a democratic society. If one were to successfully lift the veil of democracy that these social states hide behind; on the face of it they will see totalitarian DNA profile.

The result of preaching totalitarian doctrines is to weaken the instincts by means of which free people know what is or is not dangerous. Free speech by nature is dualist; on one hand the state and

on another the individuals. The whip of “In the interest of general public” keeps a check. However, if one reads between the lines the real meaning emerges to be - “in the interest of the STATE”. Soon it will be in the interest of the Social state too.

Social media has changed the nature of free speech. It used to be dualist, with two major players i.e. the State and the individuals. Now, we have a third player- social state (internet platforms). But, users of private social media platforms have little to no recourse against their censorship abuses since, in contrast to the state, these platforms are not required to uphold the basic right to free expression.

Indian Constitution has, with some exceptions, adopted the state action doctrine developed by the US Supreme court in the Civil Rights cases, according to which constitutional guarantees are enforceable only against the State and not against private actors. A new horizon is emerging. A new jurisprudence is nurturing at present- horizontal application of fundamental rights; where even non- state actor may be held accountable for violating the fundamental rights granted by Indian constitution. A new test would be required to adjudge the ambit of horizontal application of fundamental rights. The foundation has been laid down by Supreme Court via cases of Kushal Kishore and Karmanya Singh Sareen. Albeit, scope and extent of horizontal application of fundamental rights is yet to be addressed but its a step in the right direction.

There is a pressing need for the law to develop creative strategies to combat private censorship and prevent illegal speech as our conversations and speech move more and more online. Social media or like internet platforms were harbinger of liberty but now that very liberty is strangulated by state sponsored censorship. State is no philosopher king and it will not hesitate to subsume the social state into itself. A point of equilibrium must be found before rubicon is crossed or else a future of quasi totalitarian regime is eminent.

Author is an Advocate, Allahabad High Court. Views Are Personal.