The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South have access to an internal complaint-handling system, which is free, electronic, and effective, ensuring fair recourse against moderation decisions. The DMA, on the other hand, addresses competition and market dominance, targeting “gatekeeper” platforms to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, ensure fair business practices, and open digital markets to smaller innovators. Together, the DSA and DMA represent a paradigm shift from reactive to proactive platform governance approach to balance freedom of expression with responsibility by trying to prioritize both user safety and corporate transparency. As enforcement begins, the EU has positioned itself as a global standard-setter for digital regulation, influencing similar legislative efforts across regions. 3. India India’s journey toward platform governance has evolved through three distinct phases from an initial light-touch framework designed to facilitate innovation, moving toward regulatory intervention, and finally entering a phase of assertive state oversight. India’s journey toward platform governance has evolved through three distinct phases from an initial lighttouch framework designed to facilitate innovation, moving toward regulatory intervention, and finally entering a phase of assertive state oversight. 22 The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) was enacted to address the needs of a rapidly digitizing economy. Initially, the Act’s focus was on enabling e-commerce, recognizing digital signatures, and defining cyber offences, rather than regulating intermediaries. The question of intermediary liability emerged prominently in Avnish Bajaj v. State[14], in this case the CEO of the e-commerce platform Bazee.com, was held liable for obscene material uploaded by a user. The case exposed serious gaps in the law particularly around what constitutes “knowledge” and how far a platform is responsible for third-party content. In response, the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 introduced a redefined Section 79, establishing a “safe harbour” provision. This shielded intermediaries from liability for usergenerated content, provided they exercised due diligence and acted upon receiving “actual knowledge” of illegality. However, the interpretation of “actual knowledge” soon became contentious. Many intermediaries began removing content preemptively upon receiving private complaints, often without judicial oversight, leading to widespread over-censorship and Platform Regulations Across the Globe a chilling effect on free speech. This issue was addressed in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[15] wherein the court held that intermediaries are required to take down content only upon receiving a court order or a notification from a government agency authorized under Section 69A, rather than by private complaints. A new era began with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which expanded the regulatory scope significantly. These rules brought social media platforms, OTT services, and digital news publishers under one framework and imposed stringent due diligence obligations. Platforms must acknowledge complaints within 24 hours and comply with takedown orders within 36 hours of notification. An intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency shall also be punishable with 7 years or given fines. These provisions can subject individual employees to personal and criminal liability. Another noteworthy issue is Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 which has emerged as a major point of concern for transparency and due process. It empowers the government to issue confidential takedown and blocking orders, prohibiting intermediaries from disclosing any details about such directives, including the identity of the authority issuing them or the nature of the content taken down. This absolute confidentiality requirement effectively overrides the principles of transparency, accountability, and natural justice. As a result, users whose content has been blocked are often not informed or given an opportunity to contest the decision. In July 2025, the Karnataka government proposed the Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025 to curb online misinformation and hate speech. While the aim is valid, the Bill’s unclear and overly broad wording is problematic. It allows platforms to be punished for “knowingly or unknowingly” aiding, abetting, or assisting in the commission of a hate crime. Merely allowing use of their platform can hold them liable, thus, running counter to Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which held that platforms are liable only when they have actual knowledge of illegal content through a court or government order. Ignoring this principle could erode the safe harbour protections under Platform Regulations Across the Globe A new era began with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which expanded the regulatory scope significantly. These rules brought social media platforms, OTT services, and digital news publishers under one framework and imposed stringent due diligence obligations. 23