The IT Ministry's October 10 advisory asks Meta to ensure its recommendation systems do not over-expose users to a limited set of narratives, to add context to content on public events, and to report back. It comes amid protests over the electoral-roll revision, and the Internet Freedom Foundation has called it a censorship directive.
Why it matters: It bears on how much say the government has over what Indians see on major social platforms, at a time of political protests.
Why it matters: How India's voter rolls are revised decides who can vote in 2027; the dispute has moved from the Election Commission to the courts, the streets and diplomacy.
Based on 7 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 3 of 15 (The Hindu, Dainik Bhaskar, Jagran). Most of India’s largest outlets, including NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Indian Express, block our reader in this prototype, so their coverage is missing here. The launch pipeline reads their public feeds.
Outlets agree on the advisory's contents; they differ on how much weight to give the protest backdrop and the censorship criticism.
Why: Frames the advisory against protests over the SIR and quotes a digital-rights critic calling it censorship; civil-liberties lens leans left, though most of the text relays the advisory neutrally.
Why: Frames the advisory as possible censorship by noting its timing amid opposition protests and giving the last word to a digital-rights critic; stresses civil liberties over state control of speech.
Why: Wire report relays the advisory, ministry sources and a digital-rights critic. Civil-liberties angle is present but balanced, so the ideology lean is near centre and the stance is neutral.
Why: Reports the advisory and gives space to Internet Freedom Foundation's censorship criticism, touching civil liberties and state power over speech. Tone is mostly even-handed, so the lean is mild.
Why: Reports a regulatory advisory on platform algorithms with no editorialising. Mild state-oversight and public-order framing touches security and statism lightly, but no loaded language or opposing voices.
Why: Mostly a plain report of a ministry advisory with protest background. Touches state power over online speech and dissent, but neither side is praised or attacked, so the score sits near centre.
Why: Relays the government's advisory and ministry sources' complaints without critics or Meta's response. Framing around public order, curbing 'one-sided narratives' and state oversight of platforms leans towards state security and control.
Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.
If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.
High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.
Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.
Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.
This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:
| Wires and the top 20 outlets | checked every 5 minutes |
| All other outlets | checked every 15 minutes |
| New story | goes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage |
| Live stories | new articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly |
| Home page order | every 15 minutes |
New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.
A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.
NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.
Editor-in-charge: [name to be added before launch]. Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: [name and contact to be added before launch]. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days.
[Who owns and funds Nazariya, to be published before launch]. Nazariya will list every funder and will not accept money from any political party.
Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: [appeals email to be added before launch].
No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.