[sterlind]

Indeed, rural villages with low literacy rates aren't able to handle sharing rumors at the speed of light. This is precisely the discussion we're having!

Suddenly, high-speed internet is affordable even in places without reliable power. They can't spot fake news. They're unprepared for WhatsApp - do you blame them?

[projektir]

I'm not buying it, these people lynched somebody, this isn't about a lack of literacy. It's about being used to using violence as a way to solve problems.

[sterlind]

The article mentioned that lynchings were unheard of in Rainpada prior to the introduction of WhatsApp and the spread of misinformation. Please cite your source for them "being used to using violence."

[mwfunk]

I blame them for murdering strangers, yes. Of course. It makes no difference how they were tricked into doing so, that’s practically irrelevant.

[sooheon]

A: open communication and information never reaches them, we segregate them according to some prime directive, and they go on lynching each other and being backwards for all eternity until they arrive at internet #2 through convergent evolution.

B: open communication and information reach them, some use it for productive ends and some use it to mobilize lynchings, after 1~2 generations of adjustment, education, adaptation they largely outgrow and outeducate the worst of it.

C: How do you propose to regulate communication to find the best path that is neither fully A nor B?

[Tempest1981]

The article mentions how:

“The next day, WhatsApp replied to the ministry, saying that it was “horrified by these terrible acts of violence,” but arguing that an effective solution to misinformation would require help from the government. WhatsApp pushed a few changes to the app, adding “forwarded” labels to re-sent messages, and limiting the number of people or groups a user could forward messages to in India to five.”

[sterlind]

Simple: legally, treat WhatsApp groups as public message boards, and allow the local authorities to administer local WhatsApp groups the way you'd allow police to tear down signs put up on a cork-board in a public square.

It's not rocket science.

[sooheon]

I agree it's not rocket science, it might be harder because we're dealing with human behavior.

The Salem witch hunts happened with full support of the "local authorities" to run investigations, interrogations, trials, and hangings. It was not for a lack of administration.

Next month when there's an article about a corrupt official extorting farmers, are we to say "at least farmers can't communicate or organize without authority oversight?"

[Thiez]

Are you implying that whenever more than two people have a conversation on any chat application, the government should have the right to read along, for our own protection?

[sterlind]

Do you live in India?

WhatsApp is produced by Facebook, an American company. It has to obey the US government. If WhatsApp wishes to operate in India, it should provide a mechanism for the Indian government to administer it.

If it doesn't, India is well within their rights to sanction them. There's no shortage of skilled tech workers in India; Facebook needs India more than India needs Facebook.

[Thiez]

I do not. I don't live in the US either. Is that relevant?

I never suggested that WhatsApp doesn't have to obey the law in the countries it wishes to operate in. But it seems very strange to me that a discussion about the moral and ethical implications of software is now concluding with (paraphrasing you) "the solution is simple: whenever 3 people communicate online, they should be subject to government surveillance". Really? The developers of WhatsApp should have foreseen that people unaccustomed to the internet might kill people when sharing hoax videos, but you don't foresee any possible negative consequences to your proposed "simple" solution?

I think the cure you propose is worse than the disease, but if that is what India really wants then by all means let them pass a law to make it so. In that case I hope WhatsApp will create a separate app for India, because I wouldn't want to get into a group conversation with an Indian by accident.

Apart from that, I don't think your solution is as simple as you claim it to be. When people from different parts of India are in a group-chat, who is the local authority? What happens when some or all participants in a group chat move to a different place? If a foreigner visits India for one (minute/hour/day/week/month/year/decade), when do the local authorities get the right to enter all their group chats? Will they leave those chats when nobody remaining in the group chat is in India? Would this law apply to Indians abroad?