These may be new instances of Chinese brief video-sharing apps that have invaded smartphone users, especially inside India’s Tier III and IV towns. But the steep upward thrust in recognition of apps like TikTok, Likee, Vigo Video, and others has baffled the authorities and residents for a straightforward cause: An unabated upward thrust in explicit, crass, and inappropriate movies.

To their horror, the titillating films on these apps have now found a larger cellular-based messaging medium to deprave younger minds: Facebook-owned WhatsApp.
WhatsApp, with over 300 million users in India, has turned out to be the only stop save for the circulating of films showing scantily-clad ladies dancing to vulgar tunes, adult jokes, and specific “humorous” messages supplied by way of homely ladies being created in the slender dingy by using-lanes of small cities on such Chinese apps.
Although tech corporations declare to have intelligent algorithms and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based systems totally along with human side teams in the region to check objectionable content, it’s miles rapid spreading.
Both WhatsApp and TikTok went silent over queries despatched to them. TikTok directed us to a vintage assertion: “we’re committed to continuously improving our safety functions as a testament to our ongoing commitment to our users in India.”
According to Pavan Duggal, you. S. A .’s top cyber regulation expert and a senior Supreme Court advocate, the best manner to prevent the big flow of vulgar videos on mobile applications is to deal with the difficulty of middleman legal responsibility.
“Section sixty-seven of the Information Technology Act, 2000 makes the transmission or book or inflicting to be posted or transmitted inside the electronic form – any statistics that are lascivious or which appeals to the prurient hobbies or the impact of which tends to deprave or corrupt the minds of people who are likely to see, study or listen the matter contained or embodied in it – as an offense,” informed Duggal.
However, it’s miles only a bailable offense and does now not have any deterrent impact.
“The loss of any powerful prosecution underneath Section 67 has let the people agree that they could flow into vulgar videos with impunity. Hence, the duty wishes to be placed on the service vendors that the moment they’re notified about these offensive or vulgar videos on their structures, they may be responsible for removing them,” Duggal informed IANS.
In the Shreya Singhal v/s Union of India case 2015, Supreme Court struck down phase 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provided provisions for arresting folks who published allegedly offensive content on the Internet, upholding freedom of expression.
According to Duggal, who also Chairman of the International Commission on Cyber Security Law, the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court must be re-regarded because the carrier providers are misinterpreting the provisions of the stated judgment.
The Madras High Court needs a ban on TikTok, saying it spoils the future of youths and minds of children.
On its component, TikTok says it has stopped permitting customers under 13 years to log in and create an account on the platform.
“With the assistance of gadgets gaining knowledge of algorithms, videos may be screened as they’re published, with objectionable content eliminated even earlier than a user reports it, in some times.
“As a testimony of our zero-tolerance policy on objectionable content, to date, we’ve removed over 6 million videos which have violated our Terms of Use and Community Guidelines,” it adds.
However, the price of such fallacious videos isis being generated; the efforts are insufficient.
“The authorities should amend the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 to especially making tech corporations responsible for corrupting the minds of younger Indians who get swayed by way of such explicit films and might dedicate crimes,” Duggal emphasized.
Failure to conform with norms needs to entice excessive punishment of five to seven years and best of Rs. 20-30 lakh for the tech businesses to carry in suitable deterrent impact, cited the Supreme Court.