Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)

22.3K posts

Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) banner
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)

Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)

@internetfreedom

Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is an advocacy organisation born from https://t.co/hYIxzR64qM. IFF secures your civil liberties in the digital age.

India Katılım Aralık 2014
646 Takip Edilen81.9K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)@internetfreedom·
Folks, we talk a lot about donations and ask you to chip in from a place of genuine need. We are truly grateful for all the love and support. Increased interest has brought in about ₹3,89,500 in donations, and over the last thirty days our total donations were just ₹5,53,547. Do not get us wrong. It is heartening, but it still falls well short of our monthly costs. For example, in November we spent ₹8,34,169 while receiving only ₹2,70,654. This gap is often covered by fundraisers (like Krupa’s birthday fundraiser) and by larger donors through yearly gifts, but it still creates financial insecurity and makes our work harder in many ways. Some months, we also work on issues that are critical but do not get as much visibility as Sanchar Saathi. We do a lot more than tweet (which we also take very seriously), like filing literally hundreds of RTIs, dozens of cases for strategic reforms and participating in public consultations to represent the ordinary India. Truly, to fight for our constitutional values as our world gets more digitised. IFF needs sustainable forms of funding from Indians like you so we can grow to match the range of challenges to our digital rights. You can help by chipping in today, signing up as a member (we just have 204 right now), or setting up a monthly or a yearly mandate. Please do circulate this post and help us. Donate: internetfreedom.in/donate/ Email: donate@internetfreedom.in
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) tweet mediaInternet Freedom Foundation (IFF) tweet mediaInternet Freedom Foundation (IFF) tweet media
English
17
54
230
17.7K
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
@shobhitic Extremely sorry for this :/ We recovered the account in about a hour of losing access but by then the email had been sent out. Will send an apology across the list today along with steps we had taken (passmanager + 2FA), and further we will take to improve the account security.
English
1
0
1
2
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
@tarequelaskar @MsKidchaos Extremely sorry for this :/ We recovered the account in about a hour but by then the email had been sent out. Will send an apology across the list today along with steps we had taken (passmanager + 2FA), and further we will take to improve the account security.
English
0
0
1
7
Mansi P
Mansi P@MsKidchaos·
@internetfreedom your substack seems to have been hacked. Just received spam from your substack.
English
2
0
1
32
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
@krantinari @nairmayukh Extremely sorry for this :/ We recovered the account in about a hour but by then the email had been sent out. Will send an apology across the list today along with steps we had taken (passmanager + 2FA), and further we will take to improve the account security.
English
0
0
0
6
Mayukh Nair
Mayukh Nair@nairmayukh·
Hi @internetfreedom, your Substack has been hacked for a phishing operation - best you take action ASAP
Mayukh Nair tweet media
English
3
2
27
2K
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
@2ndofhername @nairmayukh Merci, we will in a few hours also send an email as an apology and and also the security steps we had taken and further we are undertaking to implement. Thank you so much for sounding the alarm :)
English
0
0
1
3
kanchi ᝰ⊙⊝⊜
kanchi ᝰ⊙⊝⊜@2ndofhername·
@nairmayukh @internetfreedom I was so surprised when I received this bec if french language so I put it in my "to read later" tasks after office time but thankyou for letting me know this was a cyberattack
English
1
0
2
19
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. There was an attempt to take over our Substack account today around 5 PM. We use a password manager and 2FA for all our accounts and are investigating how this occured. In terms of immediate steps, we have regained the account, changed our password and 2FA settings, signed out of all active sessions, and limited login access to a single user in our office. Tomorrow morning we will also send an email to the entire list outlining these steps in greater detail.
English
0
0
0
22
Madhu Menon
Madhu Menon@madmanweb·
@internetfreedom Why am I getting this phishing mail from your substack address? It didn't go into GMail spam filter either.
Madhu Menon tweet mediaMadhu Menon tweet media
English
2
0
1
305
Vasundhara Sirnate
Vasundhara Sirnate@vsirnate·
To the Indian lawyers a question: How can the use of sec 69A of the IT Act be challenged in court? Don’t the takedown orders constitute a violation of the freedom of speech and expression? Isn’t satire a form of opinion which is protected under free speech laws? Is a better way to go about this to sue X directly?
The Wire@thewire_in

X Withholds Accounts of Several Parody Handles, Activists in India, Cites ‘Legal Demand’ thewire.in/rights/x-withh…

English
17
81
414
20.6K
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) retweetledi
Komal
Komal@Komal_Indian·
If your account or post has been withheld or blocked in India, please write to legal@internetfreedom.in with screenshots, URLs, and any email or platform notice you have received. IFF will try to assist impacted users and document patterns of opaque censorship.
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)@internetfreedom

IFF statement against the Alarming Escalation of Social Media Censorship and Proposed Expansion of Takedown Powers New Delhi, March 19, 2026 The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is concerned by continuing reports of posts and accounts being withheld in India on Facebook, X and Instagram, including satire and criticism of the government. Recent reporting shows users receiving generic “withheld in India” notices or emails under Section 69A from social media platforms, with little or no explanation, while independent reporting has documented takedowns affecting speech that appears political, satirical, or critical rather than clearly unlawful. As reported by Business Standard and The Indian Express on March 18, the Union Government is currently exploring a proposal to decentralize content blocking powers under Section 69A of the IT Act. The new proposal would grant direct takedown powers to multiple ministries, including Defence, Home Affairs, External Affairs, and Information & Broadcasting. At present, MeitY signs off on Section 69A orders, while a separate notice and takedown channel already operates through Section 79(3)(b) and the Home Ministry led Sahyog portal that at least has 35 nodal officers across State Police Departments in India. At the same time, the February 2026 amendments to the IT Rules have sharply compressed compliance timelines. MeitY’s own published FAQ says intermediaries must act within 3 hours when they receive actual knowledge through a court order or a government intimation, within 36 hours for certain expedited grievances, and within 2 hours for specified complaints involving nudity, sexual content, morphed content, and impersonation. The government has also reiterated that intermediaries which fail to observe due diligence risk losing Section 79 immunity. A system built on speed, legal threat, and secrecy predictably incentivises over compliance. We remind the Union Government that the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A in the Shreya Singhal case on the basis of procedural safeguards and written reasons that could be challenged. Secret and inaccessible censorship defeats those safeguards in practice. IFF calls on the Union government to halt any move to decentralise Section 69A blocking powers further, publish blocking orders with only as per the letter and spirit of the Shreya Singhal judgement, and ensure timely notice to affected users with clear grounds and avenues for remedy. Platforms must also do more than send boilerplate messages. They should provide meaningful notice, preserve records for challenge, and publish granular transparency reporting given online censorship also impacts the public right to receive information. If your account or post has been withheld or blocked in India, please write to legal@internetfreedom.in with screenshots, URLs, and any email or platform notice you have received. IFF will try to assist impacted users and document patterns of opaque censorship.

English
2
202
279
6.6K
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) retweetledi
Jassi
Jassi@Jassije·
If your account or post has been withheld or blocked in India, please write to legal@internetfreedom.in with screenshots, URLs, and any email or platform notice you have received. IFF will try to assist impacted users and document patterns of opaque censorship.
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)@internetfreedom

IFF statement against the Alarming Escalation of Social Media Censorship and Proposed Expansion of Takedown Powers New Delhi, March 19, 2026 The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is concerned by continuing reports of posts and accounts being withheld in India on Facebook, X and Instagram, including satire and criticism of the government. Recent reporting shows users receiving generic “withheld in India” notices or emails under Section 69A from social media platforms, with little or no explanation, while independent reporting has documented takedowns affecting speech that appears political, satirical, or critical rather than clearly unlawful. As reported by Business Standard and The Indian Express on March 18, the Union Government is currently exploring a proposal to decentralize content blocking powers under Section 69A of the IT Act. The new proposal would grant direct takedown powers to multiple ministries, including Defence, Home Affairs, External Affairs, and Information & Broadcasting. At present, MeitY signs off on Section 69A orders, while a separate notice and takedown channel already operates through Section 79(3)(b) and the Home Ministry led Sahyog portal that at least has 35 nodal officers across State Police Departments in India. At the same time, the February 2026 amendments to the IT Rules have sharply compressed compliance timelines. MeitY’s own published FAQ says intermediaries must act within 3 hours when they receive actual knowledge through a court order or a government intimation, within 36 hours for certain expedited grievances, and within 2 hours for specified complaints involving nudity, sexual content, morphed content, and impersonation. The government has also reiterated that intermediaries which fail to observe due diligence risk losing Section 79 immunity. A system built on speed, legal threat, and secrecy predictably incentivises over compliance. We remind the Union Government that the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A in the Shreya Singhal case on the basis of procedural safeguards and written reasons that could be challenged. Secret and inaccessible censorship defeats those safeguards in practice. IFF calls on the Union government to halt any move to decentralise Section 69A blocking powers further, publish blocking orders with only as per the letter and spirit of the Shreya Singhal judgement, and ensure timely notice to affected users with clear grounds and avenues for remedy. Platforms must also do more than send boilerplate messages. They should provide meaningful notice, preserve records for challenge, and publish granular transparency reporting given online censorship also impacts the public right to receive information. If your account or post has been withheld or blocked in India, please write to legal@internetfreedom.in with screenshots, URLs, and any email or platform notice you have received. IFF will try to assist impacted users and document patterns of opaque censorship.

English
0
4
14
647
ηᎥ†Ꭵղ
ηᎥ†Ꭵղ@nkk_123·
I am shocked that 2 of my favorite accounts - @DrNimoYadav @Nher_who havr been withheld in India for stating facts against the Govt. This Govt can't handle criticism or pun & then Modi says 'meri alochna kijiye.' FoE is injurious to health in Modiland.
ηᎥ†Ꭵղ tweet mediaηᎥ†Ꭵղ tweet media
English
22
154
434
3.8K
Metal08
Metal08@metal00008·
@internetfreedom Sit down IFF, did you raise your voice when Mamta was threatening & arresting people for posting memes about her, no you didn't, bec clearly everyone knows where you receive instructions to get offended lmao Will you take responsibility for them planning murder of a journalist ?
Metal08 tweet media
English
4
0
10
866
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
IFF statement against the Alarming Escalation of Social Media Censorship and Proposed Expansion of Takedown Powers New Delhi, March 19, 2026 The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is concerned by continuing reports of posts and accounts being withheld in India on Facebook, X and Instagram, including satire and criticism of the government. Recent reporting shows users receiving generic “withheld in India” notices or emails under Section 69A from social media platforms, with little or no explanation, while independent reporting has documented takedowns affecting speech that appears political, satirical, or critical rather than clearly unlawful. As reported by Business Standard and The Indian Express on March 18, the Union Government is currently exploring a proposal to decentralize content blocking powers under Section 69A of the IT Act. The new proposal would grant direct takedown powers to multiple ministries, including Defence, Home Affairs, External Affairs, and Information & Broadcasting. At present, MeitY signs off on Section 69A orders, while a separate notice and takedown channel already operates through Section 79(3)(b) and the Home Ministry led Sahyog portal that at least has 35 nodal officers across State Police Departments in India. At the same time, the February 2026 amendments to the IT Rules have sharply compressed compliance timelines. MeitY’s own published FAQ says intermediaries must act within 3 hours when they receive actual knowledge through a court order or a government intimation, within 36 hours for certain expedited grievances, and within 2 hours for specified complaints involving nudity, sexual content, morphed content, and impersonation. The government has also reiterated that intermediaries which fail to observe due diligence risk losing Section 79 immunity. A system built on speed, legal threat, and secrecy predictably incentivises over compliance. We remind the Union Government that the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A in the Shreya Singhal case on the basis of procedural safeguards and written reasons that could be challenged. Secret and inaccessible censorship defeats those safeguards in practice. IFF calls on the Union government to halt any move to decentralise Section 69A blocking powers further, publish blocking orders with only as per the letter and spirit of the Shreya Singhal judgement, and ensure timely notice to affected users with clear grounds and avenues for remedy. Platforms must also do more than send boilerplate messages. They should provide meaningful notice, preserve records for challenge, and publish granular transparency reporting given online censorship also impacts the public right to receive information. If your account or post has been withheld or blocked in India, please write to legal@internetfreedom.in with screenshots, URLs, and any email or platform notice you have received. IFF will try to assist impacted users and document patterns of opaque censorship.
English
19
367
653
29.5K
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)@internetfreedom

IFF statement against the Alarming Escalation of Social Media Censorship and Proposed Expansion of Takedown Powers New Delhi, March 19, 2026 The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is concerned by continuing reports of posts and accounts being withheld in India on Facebook, X and Instagram, including satire and criticism of the government. Recent reporting shows users receiving generic “withheld in India” notices or emails under Section 69A from social media platforms, with little or no explanation, while independent reporting has documented takedowns affecting speech that appears political, satirical, or critical rather than clearly unlawful. As reported by Business Standard and The Indian Express on March 18, the Union Government is currently exploring a proposal to decentralize content blocking powers under Section 69A of the IT Act. The new proposal would grant direct takedown powers to multiple ministries, including Defence, Home Affairs, External Affairs, and Information & Broadcasting. At present, MeitY signs off on Section 69A orders, while a separate notice and takedown channel already operates through Section 79(3)(b) and the Home Ministry led Sahyog portal that at least has 35 nodal officers across State Police Departments in India. At the same time, the February 2026 amendments to the IT Rules have sharply compressed compliance timelines. MeitY’s own published FAQ says intermediaries must act within 3 hours when they receive actual knowledge through a court order or a government intimation, within 36 hours for certain expedited grievances, and within 2 hours for specified complaints involving nudity, sexual content, morphed content, and impersonation. The government has also reiterated that intermediaries which fail to observe due diligence risk losing Section 79 immunity. A system built on speed, legal threat, and secrecy predictably incentivises over compliance. We remind the Union Government that the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A in the Shreya Singhal case on the basis of procedural safeguards and written reasons that could be challenged. Secret and inaccessible censorship defeats those safeguards in practice. IFF calls on the Union government to halt any move to decentralise Section 69A blocking powers further, publish blocking orders with only as per the letter and spirit of the Shreya Singhal judgement, and ensure timely notice to affected users with clear grounds and avenues for remedy. Platforms must also do more than send boilerplate messages. They should provide meaningful notice, preserve records for challenge, and publish granular transparency reporting given online censorship also impacts the public right to receive information. If your account or post has been withheld or blocked in India, please write to legal@internetfreedom.in with screenshots, URLs, and any email or platform notice you have received. IFF will try to assist impacted users and document patterns of opaque censorship.

QME
0
0
7
555
Rants&Roasts
Rants&Roasts@Sydusm·
Well, they're now going after almost every account that has a voice.
Rants&Roasts tweet mediaRants&Roasts tweet media
English
198
684
2K
33.1K
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) retweetledi
Adrija Bose
Adrija Bose@adrijabose·
If you know me, you’ve heard me talk about this story for months. @HeraRizwan reported from 3 states. We obsessed over every detail. Google's AI, designed for phones, is now rationing food to pregnant women. Read. Get angry. Share boomlive.in/decode/ai-faci… @pulitzercenter
English
1
252
427
43.5K
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)@internetfreedom

IFF statement against the Alarming Escalation of Social Media Censorship and Proposed Expansion of Takedown Powers New Delhi, March 19, 2026 The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is concerned by continuing reports of posts and accounts being withheld in India on Facebook, X and Instagram, including satire and criticism of the government. Recent reporting shows users receiving generic “withheld in India” notices or emails under Section 69A from social media platforms, with little or no explanation, while independent reporting has documented takedowns affecting speech that appears political, satirical, or critical rather than clearly unlawful. As reported by Business Standard and The Indian Express on March 18, the Union Government is currently exploring a proposal to decentralize content blocking powers under Section 69A of the IT Act. The new proposal would grant direct takedown powers to multiple ministries, including Defence, Home Affairs, External Affairs, and Information & Broadcasting. At present, MeitY signs off on Section 69A orders, while a separate notice and takedown channel already operates through Section 79(3)(b) and the Home Ministry led Sahyog portal that at least has 35 nodal officers across State Police Departments in India. At the same time, the February 2026 amendments to the IT Rules have sharply compressed compliance timelines. MeitY’s own published FAQ says intermediaries must act within 3 hours when they receive actual knowledge through a court order or a government intimation, within 36 hours for certain expedited grievances, and within 2 hours for specified complaints involving nudity, sexual content, morphed content, and impersonation. The government has also reiterated that intermediaries which fail to observe due diligence risk losing Section 79 immunity. A system built on speed, legal threat, and secrecy predictably incentivises over compliance. We remind the Union Government that the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A in the Shreya Singhal case on the basis of procedural safeguards and written reasons that could be challenged. Secret and inaccessible censorship defeats those safeguards in practice. IFF calls on the Union government to halt any move to decentralise Section 69A blocking powers further, publish blocking orders with only as per the letter and spirit of the Shreya Singhal judgement, and ensure timely notice to affected users with clear grounds and avenues for remedy. Platforms must also do more than send boilerplate messages. They should provide meaningful notice, preserve records for challenge, and publish granular transparency reporting given online censorship also impacts the public right to receive information. If your account or post has been withheld or blocked in India, please write to legal@internetfreedom.in with screenshots, URLs, and any email or platform notice you have received. IFF will try to assist impacted users and document patterns of opaque censorship.

QME
0
1
0
10
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)@internetfreedom

IFF statement against the Alarming Escalation of Social Media Censorship and Proposed Expansion of Takedown Powers New Delhi, March 19, 2026 The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is concerned by continuing reports of posts and accounts being withheld in India on Facebook, X and Instagram, including satire and criticism of the government. Recent reporting shows users receiving generic “withheld in India” notices or emails under Section 69A from social media platforms, with little or no explanation, while independent reporting has documented takedowns affecting speech that appears political, satirical, or critical rather than clearly unlawful. As reported by Business Standard and The Indian Express on March 18, the Union Government is currently exploring a proposal to decentralize content blocking powers under Section 69A of the IT Act. The new proposal would grant direct takedown powers to multiple ministries, including Defence, Home Affairs, External Affairs, and Information & Broadcasting. At present, MeitY signs off on Section 69A orders, while a separate notice and takedown channel already operates through Section 79(3)(b) and the Home Ministry led Sahyog portal that at least has 35 nodal officers across State Police Departments in India. At the same time, the February 2026 amendments to the IT Rules have sharply compressed compliance timelines. MeitY’s own published FAQ says intermediaries must act within 3 hours when they receive actual knowledge through a court order or a government intimation, within 36 hours for certain expedited grievances, and within 2 hours for specified complaints involving nudity, sexual content, morphed content, and impersonation. The government has also reiterated that intermediaries which fail to observe due diligence risk losing Section 79 immunity. A system built on speed, legal threat, and secrecy predictably incentivises over compliance. We remind the Union Government that the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A in the Shreya Singhal case on the basis of procedural safeguards and written reasons that could be challenged. Secret and inaccessible censorship defeats those safeguards in practice. IFF calls on the Union government to halt any move to decentralise Section 69A blocking powers further, publish blocking orders with only as per the letter and spirit of the Shreya Singhal judgement, and ensure timely notice to affected users with clear grounds and avenues for remedy. Platforms must also do more than send boilerplate messages. They should provide meaningful notice, preserve records for challenge, and publish granular transparency reporting given online censorship also impacts the public right to receive information. If your account or post has been withheld or blocked in India, please write to legal@internetfreedom.in with screenshots, URLs, and any email or platform notice you have received. IFF will try to assist impacted users and document patterns of opaque censorship.

QME
0
0
1
38
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) retweetledi
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
Sahyog (noun): Cooperation The Sahyog Portal is the platform where the government cooperates with itself to decide YOUR satire is "harmful" and deletes it without a court ever seeing it. Comic by @aaaaadvik
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) tweet mediaInternet Freedom Foundation (IFF) tweet mediaInternet Freedom Foundation (IFF) tweet mediaInternet Freedom Foundation (IFF) tweet media
English
1
37
48
1.8K