How do Facebook and other social media sites respond to autocratic regimes' attempts to stifle them?

The Indian system has slapped some criminal cases against prominent social media sites for hosting controversial content. It is well known that the content is created by the public and the website takes action when someone complains. So effectively there are billions of posted comments and there are billions of responses. Websites have well published guidelines for what constitutes acceptable behavior and readers can check against these guidelines and complain about instances of violations.


However the Indian system wants the websites to proactively screen the content before posting without waiting for complaints to come up.


The websites say that is not technically feasible. What they mean is that it is not commercially possible for them to do this as screening billions of postings will require armies of proof readers and the websites would go bankrupt in the attempt.


Autocratic societies like China simply ban access to the websites. The Chinese government spends a fortune on deep packet inspection and deletes all such requests to these websites.


India seems to be well on this path too. It should not surprise many because social media sites represent an articulation of values of individual liberty and freedom. These are western values and have been artificially transplanted into India by the British. India is much more at home with the Persian, Chinese and Indian value systems where the Individual is merely a recipient of state favors and must follow state policy unquestioningly.