Whether HuffPost was popular in India is besides the point.
To provide some contrast, the same govt amended a law originally designed to prohibit foreign funding of political parties and changed it to allow funding from local companies which have more than 50% foreign ownership.
So basically political parties can indirectly accept foreign funds through above loophole which the ruling party itself created but news organizations cannot.
“ the controlling Bharatiya Janata Party government passed a retroactive amendment through a 2016 Finance Bill that excludes from the definition of “foreign sourced” contributions from local companies even though a foreign company owns more than half their shares, provided certain direct investment requirements are met”
> Whether HuffPost was popular in India is besides the point
It is central, if they were popular and making money or if they were popular and have a wonderful future prospects, they wouldn't have to be propped up.
And whoever is funding it could be motivated by not so charitable reasons.
there are dozens and dozens of businesses which are not profitable right now and burn a lot of cash, and yet they are operating. Almost all big startups dont make any profit.
If I had to fund a media organisation in a foreign country which only runs losses.
Either I am a philanthropist or more likely have a sinister motive. Several foreign dictatorships are heavily invested in controlling the media narrative in India.
This was perhaps triggered by the war with China. India's liberal foreign ownership gives China a one way strategic advantage.
China is not going to influence India through news channels, they will do it through pop media like tiktok. And banning those channels will just garner more outrage and discord. Its a win win situation for them. Even if there is an indian alternative to tiktok there is nothing stopping them from posting ridiculous divisive stuff there. Its quite clear that is already happening with America (done by Russia is the suspicion).
If this is your solution to fight against stuff like that, then GoI has brought a knife to a missile fight.
(BTW, its not like they don't understand this playbook, BJP uses it itself.)
Huff Post and Amnesty Intl tend to lean liberal, which means butting heads with the current Hindu nationalist government and its agenda. As a very recent example, the Netflix kissing scene between a Muslim boy and a Hindu girl generated great outrage within the ruling party, and was covered with great disdain (or not covered) by most local media, and once things got dicey, international media began covering it, albeit by taking a stance opposite to the government.
From your link: "Governments that have criticised AI include those of Israel, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China, Vietnam, Russia, Chile and the United States".
From personal experience, most Indians in the tech space are conservative-leaning. I don't network a lot, but I do talk to people enough to know that "liberal" in the western sense is a very rare viewpoint in this industry.
I would go one step further and say that most Indians in the tech space come from Upper Caste, well to do Middle Class families with enough money to give them a comfortable chance at getting into a decent college in India/Abroad. This gives them a sense of entitlement that is very hard to shake off.
This also makes them partially blind to the kind of hardship most poor Indians have to face and live with for the entirety of their lives.
Income inequality has been diminishing in India, but it still a major force as it tends to drive the kind of demographic that would end up in certain type of jobs or positions within bureaucracy.
I completely disagree with this comment. I am from the so called privileged upper caste who father had to ride a rickshaw to send me to college. I still remember thinking to join some other college because the fee was raised in 2008.
Take your propaganda to somewhere else.
Before I am name called I would say I am not a BJP supporter.
Please read my comment again. I was talking about Upper Caste, well to do middle class.
Also this is not about supporting any political party. This is a problem embedded in our social culture. Income equality is a menace that hurts all those who are not well-off, irrespective of their caste or religion.
Where in my comment did I deny it. I agree it exists.
Should I list my every other belief in this comment. So you do not accuse me of something which I did not say?
I just makes me angry when people say all uppercaste are rich and powerful. It belittles the experiences my father had during my childhood.
I usually ignore threads like this, But this is HN turning into twitter threads. I would not comment in this anymore.
Exactly this: where is that exaggerated sense of entitlement coming from? Who else finds it insane? It is not only caste. It is a sense of superiority.
It comes from not wanting to share their wealth with those who have less, and helps maintain or increase their standard of living.
I know business owners that will vote for lower taxes as a single issue. They could not care less that their own nieces and nephews were being screwed by the labor laws their “low tax” politicians were supporting.
What is most important is enhancing the relative position of themselves and their children in society.
Another instance is a spate of recent 1-star reviews on Amazons with comments like "Great product, works as described and value for money, but I'm giving it 1 star because it's made in China". Seems to me Amazon is letting this slide because that's where the wind is blowing now.
That is really funny to me, because PayTM's founder is supposedly very tight with the BJP, and they also rode the demonetization wave hard with the full-page ad featuring Modi.
Fascism rarely has any internal consistency or meaning. It’s an ideology of hate towards the other and sucks to be you if you’re the other.
It’s not surprising that they turned on him. If he had bothered to read history, he’d have read what happens to most supporters and collaborators of such regimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
Fascists are an ouroboros of hate. They all eat themselves.
You are the one labelling them, different countries have different histories.
People usually labelled "Hindu right wing" by the english media have nothing in common with the western idea of conservative.
They are strongly pluralistic, believe in smaller communities and tribes preserving their identity, nature loving, sympathetic to vegetarianism, not homophobic, not against abortion, strong believers in climate change and eco friendly policies.
Hitler was a vegetarian and the Nazis established nature preserves. You had to ask for permission to experiment on a worm not the untermenschen. They funded programs to populate the forests of Europe with Big Game like Bison
All political movements take the shape of the territory they occupy. When fascism arises it uses symbols of its host society. Indians won't use a phyrgian cap they'll use saffron
Would they be more "liberal" if they went around carrying out genocides, ethnic cleansing, destroying ancient temples and idols.
Indians are pluralistic and have preserved their unique pluralistic identities for 1000s of years against all odds. The world has seen the erasure of almost all the ancient civilisations and cultures.
How "liberal" of people who claim to stand with the rights of "red Indians" to preserve their identity and turning around to tell the "brown Indians" that they do not deserve an identity.
I am truly shocked by the hypocrisy/shallowness/ignorance of the self appointed "liberal elite".
I find it highly amusing that the same HN hivemind that rallied behind Peter Thiel's takedown of Gawker are calling a legal move by a sovereign democratic country fascism. Perhaps we need to drop this western gaze when analyzing events in the East?
> They(Gawker) have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose. They're scum, and it's pure karma that they're being destroyed by someone they outed.[1^]
As an Indian, I'm just disappointed that we seem to have wholeheartedly chosen a side - USA - in the upcoming Cold War 2.0 instead of staying a bit more neutral. I don't think we chose well.
It's a choice between rock and a hard place for India for Cold war 2.0. I have no love for the current govt. (or the past ones, if that matters) but Indian situations simply can't be seen by US-colored-goggles. There are multiple factors at play and there is not much common apart from democracy.
"Fascism" is a strong word, I hope people can be a bit careful with using it.
It is not like these comments are supporting the beheading or stoning to death of journalists or trying to protect grooming gangs or institutions involved in child sex scandals.
The broader plot involves the identification of an outsider, in India's case it is muslims. The Other is identified as the source of the problem and is highlighted as being a part of the plot against the majority. The classical example is the "they're raping our women and planting demon babies" plot https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/11/19/indias-ruling-part...
A xenophobic movement with a paramilitary organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh that is obsessed with a plot to undermine the majority that has heavily implied racial/ethnic subtext. The movement implies that they will take the country back to an unspecified time when it was greater. They identify the minority as the obstacle. They clamp down on all dissent and attempt to induct children and the young into their cults through a focus on service and death in the service of the nation.
> You've implied multiple times that there's something spooky going on without evidence
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. HuffPo is no saints and in the world of global info warfare, I wouldn't be so quick to give them a clean chit. See how Al Jazeera etc operate with a state backed agenda for an example.
> A xenophobic movement with a...
This is such an incoherent rant riddled with falsehoods without any evidence. RSS is no xenophobic movement even if the biased wikipedia page paints it that way. If you have grassroots Indian experience, you'll know that they want to revive Hindu right, while preserving Dharmic values. I don't agree with all their attempts, but it's laughable how brown sepoys quickly jump to it's criticism without substantial data.
You seem to have a fixed agenda and reiterating the same unsubstantiated claims against imaginary bogeymen. The economist links you've mentioned can be easily summarized as an opinion piece and I can provide several more similar links from SwarajyaMag that say otherwise.
HN has been flooded by Hindu Nationalists. Every topic about India I comment on, not only it gets downvoted pretty heavily but typical conspiracy theories get thrown. It is really disappointing, you are right.
As a "Hindu nationalist" I can assure you that no such thing is happening considering the only news to hit the front pages are usually negative news about India.
And I normally see a lot of the 'caste, cow & curry' crowd commenting quite "liberally".
> Every topic about India I comment on, not only it gets downvoted pretty heavily
Playing a devil's advocate here, would you think there's another side to the debate? India is no binary system like US and is a thriving and functioning democracy. I understand the penchant for people to downvote dissent, but could there be another side to the argument rather than "Indian's are Hindu Nationalists"?
Even if that’s true then close Huffpost by finding evidence for those claims.
Not by adding a retroactive FDI cap and destroying foreign future investment.
Of course, the fact that the government didn’t do the correct thing indicates that Huffpost is hardly an influence operation, but that this government wouldn’t survive too long with independent media dominating the airwaves and Whatsapp as opposed to their lackeys.
a big chunk of the mainstream traditional media in India is pro-establishment and pro-government.
Digital news organizations were predominantly anti-establishment, thus the efforts by the government to toe the organizations to its line.
First it introduced the FDI regulations for foreign media as mentioned in the article.
if you would care to notice, most of the criticism comes from authoritarian countries or countries that have a known history of violating human rights.
Israel( issues related to Palestine)
China( I dont think I need to mention anything)
US( Guantánamo Bay )
Russia (again, authoritarian)
a big chunk of the mainstream traditional media in India is pro-establishment and pro-government
And? Why would you not be pro your own government? Should the media be against the government that people elect and which protects people's rights? Should the media be pro foreign governments and agencies?
I interpret pro-government as "supports the current administration's agenda". You seem to be interpreting it as "anti-anarchy" or at least 'pro-democracy". But a free (to be critical of the government's policies!) and independent press is crucial to the functioning of a democracy.
The same freedom that allows the media to criticize legitimate concerns when it comes to the government also allows hostile foreign interests to amplify minor issues or manufacture fake ones to take down the government and install one that they can control from the outside, often to the detriment of the country and the citizens. So, my theory is that the countries that will succeed over the next decades are the ones which can protect themselves from foreign influence, by kicking out foreign interest groups, "aid" agencies, investments, apps, "news" sites etc. which India is doing. The obvious side effect will be that legitimate concerns and legitimate organizations which are detrimental to the establishment will also be suppressed. But I don't think there is a way to not do that.
Didn't the WHO literally do a house call to the entire country of India in their ultimately successful quest to eradicate smallpox? I wouldn't rush to condemn international aid.
You put scare quotes around both aid and news. Neither of these things are inherently bad.
Misinformation is the threat, not simply foreign information.
Government control of media is not a remedy to misinformation. In fact it is frequently a source.
You seem to be espousing an isolationist strategy but the genie is out of the bottle. Any country that tries to pull back from the rest of the world will suffer in comparison.
Any country that tries to pull back from the rest of the world will suffer in comparison.
Well, China has greatly benefited from doing exactly that. They greatly regulate and control foreign influence while they exert their influence every where they can. India is a big rival and they have been funding everything from the Naxalites (the underground Indian communist organization) to mainstream parties, organizations, media, universities... whatever they can which gives them political advantage.
China doesn't have a isolation strategy, they have a control strategy: foreigners that follow their rules are very welcome, as opposed to simply banned from visiting. Its strange to call a country with a clearl export focus "isolationist".
I don't think we disagree. Isolation is an essential part of it. If they didn't have isolation to begin with, they wouldn't be able to control anything.
India's new NGO legislation is a page straight from Beijing. Same with banning Chinese apps and pushing back on FAANG. It's a step in the right direction, hopefully an indigenous ecosystem will pop up in the coming years, but India's problem has always been execution. Still, this is a good time to push - India can and does get away with murder now to thanks new geopolitical realignments. China had to wait much longer before conditions were relatively favourable.
1. Just because they did it and were successful doesn't mean everyone who does it will be successful. They did a thousand other things which will never happen in India. Like being a technocratic society which punishes corruption quite publicly.
2. Just because they were successful doesn't mean that is the only way to do it.
Sure, that's actually a very good point with regard to the CCP's great firewall in the context of economic prosperity. It remains to be seen how well that works long term. I wouldn't ask for the same treatment myself.
Regardless of what certain individuals want, ignoring inevitable outcomes don't fare well for them.
For example, like Yuval Noah Harari mentions in Sapiens, agriculture was not necessarily good for individuals. But since it allowed long term storage of food (in the form of grains), it allowed for stable habitats which grew into cities and nation states. There were still tribal people for a long time (there still are) who didn't adopt the technology but they were increasingly at the mercy of those on the other side.
We've seen the same with other technologies, like powerful weapons in the last centuries.
I think, in the new information age, we're headed to a similar trajectory with this new set of propaganda methods and defenses. Those who don't incorporate these new technologies into their systems will be at the mercy of those who do.
A good level of skepticism is a healthy check on corruption. People (for now) in the minority opposition should have some voice, it'd be odd if there weren't opposition outlets to say anything contrary.
The powers that be protects people's rights, until they don't, and you don't want to be the proverbial frog in the pot coming to a boil.
However, I don't think we have a choice. At this point, the only two choices seem to be either to be governed by a tyrannical government fueled by national interests or a tyrannical government controlled by foreign interests.
I believe in decentralization of power, a structure where the governed are closer to those who govern them. I think this leads to people in power having more skin in the game.
No, the media should not be pro government. Yes, the media should be against the government first and should criticize and be sceptical on whatever the government is doing. And if after checking the facts, the government seems to be doing good, it's okay to compliment. But media should never be pro government.
Also these donations are anonymous (to the public) so it's even more egregious that the opposition leaders have not managed to make this into a larger issue (maybe it benefits all parties?).
Incorrect. The opposition in India has been largely castrated, mocked and vilified by media sources in most of the country, especially non-English media.
For the record, I read somewhere that the current Indian ruling party is the wealthiest ruling party in the world with an AUM of $3B (this is an outdated number btw). Meanwhile the opposition has barely enough money to fund the construction of its own headquarters.
I believe Rupert Murdoch, who is Australian became a US citizen to take ownership of US television stations. He seems to have a significant influence here (as well as Europe and Asia). So crazy enough for established procedures.
Well yes, they can easily suppress anti-government writing from Indian residents with credible threats of violence. This law is to protect the government from critics abroad where the Indian government cannot reach.
Funny how all the authoritarian governments are following the same script. Restricting foreign investment in media while keeping the inland investors under control sounds a lot like my native Russia.
At least in Russia the law restricting foreign investment in media was passed in 2014. China probably never allowed foreign investment in media in the first place.
India is just late to the dictatorship club - as little as I understand Indian politics, it was pretty democratic before the latest nationalist government.
We don't know, and what's significant? Return on investment regardless of size of investment is significant when running any business.
> At some point, fundamentals of the business matter.
I think the fundamental outlined in the article is "Narendra Modi government’s new foreign direct investment norms for digital media," and not described in relation to revenue.
Given that they cannot carry out their ops without foreign investment is clear indication that the business was unsustainable.
> I think the fundamental outlined in the article is "Narendra Modi government’s new foreign direct investment norms for digital media," and not described in relation to revenue.
That's an opinion piece. The fact is they shut down operations. And if the reason is lack of foreign investment, then it's imminently obvious that they made no profits.
Amazon is losing tons of money in India, and they couldn't sustain that business without funding from their parent org. Should the government shut them down too?
Props to newslaundry.com for posting this story. They show nuances that aren't covered by popular news channels in India. e.g. they explained Krishi(farmer) Bill, Citizenship Amendment Bill in a fun and logical way.
Keeping aside the point whether I like the decision or not (I don't), there is still a major flaw in the law which will make sure it does not achieve its goal of reducing foreign influence in India. In today's world, entertainment channels influence people's views, including political views, much more than news channels. People are increasingly making their opinions based on whatsapp forwards and twitter/tiktok trends. There is no restrictions on FDI in those.
India really needs a stern kick in the back from the West to stop is continuing authoritarian tendencies and its slide into becoming a nominal democracy like Turkey and Iran.
> Local journalists are still free to write for foreign publications.
I don't know about India specifically, but in many countries working for the press gives you some special status. You are not supposed to be attacked by the police during protests, government officials owe some basic comment to you etc. Basically rights that allow you to do journalist's job legally and relatively safely. Foreign media probably don't enjoy the same privileges.
Also, when your freedom is being taken from you, finding loopholes doesn't really work in middle/long term. The regime has all the possibilities to close them one by one.
I agree with you regarding all points. As someone living in India, I'm concerned with the eroding freedom. But as a person always looking for hacks, I'm also desperate for publications to simply not die off and this was one way.
I think the definition of democracy exclude many countries today. One of the major point of democracy which I was taught in my social class was that we need enough choices in our parties and candidates. India doesn't have that. There are only two significant political parties at the central level and one of them has been weakened too much to be a competitor anymore.
There was a question in my exam about this too. Why are x countries not democratic despite having public elections?
There is. When you live here it's easy to see it. Tensions have been escalating for last 6 months. Hence many changes in Foreign investments - esp. from China.
Let me ask you this: If you walk down a busy street, which are the most likely you see: McDonald's or whatever equivalent they have in China? If you look at people using computers do they use Facebook and Google or Renren and Baidu? Do you see more Mandarin taught in schools or English? Chinese or western TV? Clearly culturally there are way more from the US. Tensions isn't because "China is taking over". Culturally India have already been taken over years ago. If anything India is now trying to get away from colonial times and English/American meddling.
One can only hope India rises as a power player in its own right. Pointing fingers at PRC is just propaganda to get people to look away from national problems and the real foreign investment boogeymen which has been in India all along and don't want more competition.
On what Americans call Left and what the rest of the world call Right or Center-right. Since this is about India this is incorrect. HuffPost is center-right.
I wouldn't exactly consider the left in India, or most of the west for that matter, "left" of the American left. This is true on some dimensions but certainly not many others, at least speaking as someone who has lived in both the US and western Europe.
Look at this political map from when the extreme right wing is rolling over Europe and when lots of politicians were very scared of what is to come. Talk of rise of fascism etc. is seen every day in papers. The future looks bleak:
The people constantly complaining about "Russian bots" or "foreign election interference" are always the same ones demanding every other country import western media and social media with no restrictions.
To provide some contrast, the same govt amended a law originally designed to prohibit foreign funding of political parties and changed it to allow funding from local companies which have more than 50% foreign ownership.
So basically political parties can indirectly accept foreign funds through above loophole which the ruling party itself created but news organizations cannot.
“ the controlling Bharatiya Janata Party government passed a retroactive amendment through a 2016 Finance Bill that excludes from the definition of “foreign sourced” contributions from local companies even though a foreign company owns more than half their shares, provided certain direct investment requirements are met”
Source: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/elections/foreign-involvement/i...