The media is the new and leading ideological state apparatus of contemporary societies. Note that media in this piece, by and large, refers to mass as well as social media. Narratives— built, moulded and disseminated; all by the media to ‘inform’ and manoeuvre the masses. Louis Althusser, a French Marxist Philosopher, in his work Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus argues that ideology is more than a mere set of ideas. It is a material practice (Althusser, 1971). Ideological State Apparatuses or ISAs are institutions that reproduce power relations by shaping subjectivities. Building on that, one of the current ISAs which has been incredibly active is that of the media.
Taking social media as a focal point brings us to our question of emancipation: does our practice of social media carry that potential? Especially under the light of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill. This bill seeks to address the expanding landscape of media platforms, taking into account content regulation across traditional television broadcasters as well as new-age YouTubers, Podcasters, Independent content creators, etc. (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 2023). Despite its turbulent trajectory, with two withdrawals for revision, the bill remains a key agenda in parliamentary debates (Hindustan Times, 2025). It emphasises increasing the presence of “Indian programmes”, promoting local culture, encouraging accountability while curbing misinformation, signalling a re-emergence and igniting concern about such regulations that would limit free expression.
Social media can essentially be understood as a digital public sphere. Jüergen Habermas’s interpretation of the public sphere both as a cultural category and a social structure is a space where citizens as individuals can freely discuss matters of public interest and form opinions, which he noted to be very important for democracy (Habermas, 1989). Therefore, social media can be considered as a spectrum of online platforms, rather independent arenas where users or the public can share their viewpoints, ranging from their personal lives to potentially political opinions. With wider access to the internet, these platforms have emerged as arenas for public discourses, grassroots mobilisation, commercialisation and political contestation. Social media holds the promise of creating a truly emancipatory and decentralised public sphere where counter politics (#MeToo #dalitlivesmatter), alternative journalism (The Wire), and political mobilisations (Arab Spring) give marginalised voices a platform, enabling active participation in political discourses and democratic processes (Fraser, 1990). In the digital age, we have a new sort of ISA, a new public sphere— social media, which has the dual potential of emancipation and repression.
Sections 30 and 31 of the draft of the bill released in 2023 together talk about inspection and confiscation, “… No prior permission or intimation shall be required to exercise the right of the Central Government or its authorised officers or agency so authorised by it, to carry out such inspection.” (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 2023) allows intrusive interventions in digital platforms, thereby constraining the free flow of information.
A report from The Wire states, “YouTubers and Instagrammers who get paid a share of advertising revenue or enable paid subscriptions or even monetise their channel will be regulated as digital news broadcasters if they broadcast news and current affairs. They need to comply with the program code and the advertising code. That creator needs to conform to a 3 Tier mechanism put in place by the IT rules” (Pahwa, 2024). An inference from the revised draft of the bill in 2024, potentially negates the multiple opinions or interpretations of news and current affairs, moving towards a monitored space and streamlining of discourse.
This shift not only standardises regulatory compliance across a diverse spectrum of digital content but also risks diminishing multiplicity, threatening to flatten the diverse ecosystem and potentially favouring uniform controlled narratives.
Social media possesses the capacity to democratise digital spaces for multiple truths. At its core, it can serve as a form of digital civic engagement and an alternate narrative. Nancy Fraser argued about the fragmented nature of public spaces into multiple ‘counterpublics’ where marginalised groups develop their own spaces and contest dominant narratives in their own ways. However, social media, when used as an ISA, is fundamentally vulnerable to mechanisms of control. The Broadcasting Services (Regulations) Bill (if applicable) with ambiguous provisions expands the regulatory scope to potentially erode the freedom that underpins digital discourses. The evaluation committees discussed in the bill, followed by strict certification processes and licensing, hold the capacity to compel media (traditional or hybrid) to align with the homogenised standards propagated by the authorities or face repercussions otherwise. As seen in sections 8 and 9 of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill (2023), phrases like “…likely to promote disharmony” (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 2023) enable arbitrary penalties and stifling dissent. Plus, digital platforms largely function according to algorithms, which at times boost popular narratives, be it valid or not, giving way to the possible spread of fake information. The bill, therefore, might not directly censor specific content but can shape the ideological arena of digital spaces in a way that influences the meta-narratives and discourses on social media.
While regulation is essential to tackle misinformation and ensure accountability, the current framework risks the transformation of so-called free digital spaces into controlled spaces or ideological weapons of the state. Along with that, arbitrary restrictions and compulsion may pose hindrances to the fast-growing digital economy of content creators, largely independent. The bill in its current form risks reconfiguring these platforms into state extensions, increasing scrutiny and jeopardising online dissent. What is needed is a balanced regulatory act or system— one that safeguards democratic potential, the cultural domain of nationalism, without hurting the emancipation potential of such platforms in India.
References
Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Monthly Review Press.
Chatterjee, P. (1994). The nation and its fragments: Colonial and postcolonial histories. Oxford University Press.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, (25/26), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). MIT Press.
Hindustan Times. (2025, March 12). Parliament panel seeks early talks on Broadcast Bill. https://www.hindustantimes.com/
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. (2023, December 7). Draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023. Government of India.
Pahwa, N. (2024). ‘Compliance’ for YouTubers and Instagrammers: What the proposed Broadcast Bill says. The Wire. https://thewire.in/media/broadcast-bill-youtuber-instagram-compliance
***
Alisha Afrin is a Master’s Student of Sociology at Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), New Delhi.