Parliamentary Panel Questions ‘Community Notes’ on X; Calls for Publisher-Level Regulation

A fresh debate over the regulatory status of social media features has emerged after Nishikant Dubey stated that Parliament’s Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology has taken a clear position on the issue.

According to Dubey, the committee has unanimously conveyed to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology that the “Community Notes” feature on X should not be classified as an intermediary activity.

‘Publishing, Not Intermediary Function’

Dubey said the committee believes that the feature resembles publishing rather than intermediary services, which could subject it to stricter regulatory and taxation frameworks.

“Our committee has clearly informed the Ministry that X India’s role in Community Notes is that of publishing, not an intermediary,” he stated in a post on X.

He further indicated that social media platforms may be required to either discontinue such features or comply with obligations similar to those applicable to publishers, including taxation norms.

Call for Regulatory Alignment with Global Frameworks

Referring to international precedents, Dubey cited Australia as an example, arguing that platforms operating in India should adhere to comparable regulatory and taxation standards if their services qualify as publishing activities.

In a separate remark, he questioned the absence of tax obligations for such features, suggesting that platforms benefiting from content-related functions should contribute to public revenue on par with traditional publishers.

He also proposed that, if Community Notes continues to operate in its current form, the platform should obtain a publisher’s licence in India and comply with applicable tax requirements.

Reference to Australian Intermediary Framework

Dubey also shared a document outlining intermediary frameworks within Australia’s justice system. The document explains that intermediaries are trained professionals who assist vulnerable individuals—particularly in sensitive criminal proceedings such as sexual offence and homicide cases—by facilitating communication.

It notes that such intermediary programmes operate across several Australian jurisdictions, including New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory, with specific legislative provisions governing their role and scope.

The framework, according to the document, was shaped by recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, as well as law reform bodies advocating improved access to justice for vulnerable witnesses.

Broader Regulatory Implications

The committee’s observations have broader implications for how emerging features on social media platforms are classified and regulated in India. The distinction between intermediary functions and publishing roles could significantly influence compliance requirements, liability frameworks, and taxation policies in the digital ecosystem.