Rohit

Computer Science | He/Him

[DrSauce ☭🔻(Sign petition in bio!) @DrSauceX]

Your problem is not reservation, your problem, like all students who don’t get a seat, is that there are just 1.5lakh seats for 25 lakh neet exam aspirants. And that half of them are private.

The problem or the solution is not reservation but education under capitalism

[eppy @epppyyy]

I want to once again remind everyone about the Ken Batua River Project Project

[Sarthak Sidhant @sidhant_sarthak]

@arvindgunasekar Did Dharmendra Pradhan resign?

[Sudhir Suryawanshi @ss_suryawanshi]

Shocking, cops are threatening the students that if they continue to participate in students protest, then he will put 50 gm drugs packet in their pockets….then consequences will be serious.

[sammm ☆ @onlysammms]

one of the coldest photos you’ll see today

[Ziya @Ziya7msd]

Hero works for Britishers and beats the Indians. No wonder you are a slave 😂😂

[Man Aman Singh Chhina @manaman_chhina]

The Editor of Völkischer Beobachter was hanged at Nuremberg.
This argument was lost 80 years back.

[miku 𝄞 𓇢𓆸 @mikromoons]

It is absolutely not the first time. The CAA/NRC protests as a recent example, were larger in scale. The average Hindu Indian just didn't care as much then because it didn't affect them directly.

[Prithvi @Prithvi10_]

A few 100 viral reels or tweets is not a wave. In the last few weeks, they bought

7 MPs from AAP.
6 from Shiv Sena UBT.
Atleast 25 -30 from TMC.
They are getting another 7 from NCP SP in few days.
Thats atleast 45 MPs from the Opposition in both houses. This is going to help them massively to pass bills like delimitation. And dozens of MPs are either going to be absent or abstain from voting against the bill. People don't realise how dangerous is this. Where is the money they are getting to buy MPs ?
Yeh paisa BJP ne dudh bech ke to nahi kamaya hai.... Neither Supreme court nor Election commission have any problem in whatever is going on right now. Is this even a topic of discussion anywhere ?
They systematically finished off 4 State Parties ( AAP and TMC were national parties infact ). If we go to polls today they are not going below 220 seats and I am being very generous. Them losing elections is a gone case for another 15-20 yrs atleast. Let's be realistic here...

[Siddharth Markande @Sid_markande]

He was right though.

[eppy @epppyyy]

The entirety of India is going to be like this btw

[Nida. @themeowist]

"leftist infighting", "puritan politics". man, buzz words are not politics. his isolated issue doesn't override the broader political project he has consistently represented & legitimised. agreement on a single thing doesn't negate fundamental political contradictions (1/n)

[Ajay Kamath @ajay43]

Don’t remember @RahulGandhi whining that nobody was joining his Bharath Jodo Yatra…

[Comrade Izzy ☭🦍🟥⬛️🟩 @ComradeIzzy]

"The body essentially treats the return to work as a physical threat"

[Sanjay Raut @rautsanjay61]

सन्मानीय मुख्यमंत्री @Dev_Fadnavis जी आपल्याकडील गृहमंत्री पदाची पूजा घाला!
ज्या पांढऱ्या कपड्यातील देवदूतांनी करोना काळात जनतेची सेवा केली,
त्या महिला डॉक्टर आणि नर्स ना मिंधे टोळीचे गुंड इस्पितळात घुसून अमानुष मारहाण करतात
हे काय कायद्याचे राज्य आहे?
या सगळ्यांची हातात बेड्या घालून ,चड्डी बनियन वर वरात काढा!
@mieknathshinde
@AmitShah
@PMOIndia
@narendramodi

[Dr Shrimp Puerto Rico ☘️🇧🇷🇲🇽🔻 @LadPsycho]

The most badass thing about Parasyte's manga is how the mangaka drops this banger quote about US presidency

[Seldon @seld_on]

What part of "houses are for living, not for speculation" do you people fail to understand

[Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) @internetfreedom]

Statement on MeitY's notice to WhatsApp over the "usernames" feature

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has sent WhatsApp a notice about the usernames feature it announced on 29 June 2026. The notice asks the company to explain, within three days, why regulatory action should not be taken against it "for launching a feature that may increase cybercrimes", and it directs the company "not to roll out this feature until the consultation on this point is achieved to the satisfaction of the Government". The Internet Freedom Foundation is concerned that the notice has no clear basis in law. It is an attempt by the executive to decide what a company may build and ship, which no statute permits.

The notice treats the launch of a lawful feature as a wrong the company must justify. That reverses the ordinary position especially given the absence of any clear legal power that exists. MeitY does not name any provision that lets it approve a product feature before release or order one withdrawn, because there is none, and the provisions it does cite do not supply that power.

Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 is a safe harbour that protects an intermediary from liability for what its users post, so long as it observes due diligence. It decides when a platform can be held liable. It is not a power for MeitY to decide what features the platform may offer. Sections 66C and 66D punish identity theft and cheating by personation. They are criminal offences, tried by courts, aimed at the person who steals an identity, not at the maker of a tool that a third party misuses. Also, on MeitY's logic, a telecom operator could be told not to sell SIM cards because SIM cards are used in almost every online fraud.

Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(2) and Rule 4 of the IT Rules, 2021 are due diligence and grievance obligations and cannot be converted into a licensing scheme. Section 69A, the one provision that lets MeitY control what appears online, permits the blocking of specific information through a set procedure. It says nothing about which features a company may build. Further the IT Rules, 2021 are subordinate legislation made under Sections 79 and 87 of the IT Act, and subordinate rules cannot travel beyond the parent statute (Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India). If a rule cannot exceed the Act, a letter certainly cannot. The power to require prior permission for a feature is not in the Act, not in the Rules, and cannot be created by a notice.

MeitY has tried this before. In March 2024 it told the same large intermediaries, among them AI Companies, to obtain its explicit permission before deploying under-tested AI models. That was criticised as an overreach that sought to build a licensing mechanism with no empowering provision in the IT Act, and within a fortnight MeitY withdrew it and dropped the permission requirement. This notice repeats the move for a single feature and goes further, because it names one company, sets a three-day clock, and bars the launch until MeitY is satisfied.

This matters beyond WhatsApp. A power asserted against one company by letter can be turned on any company and any feature. On this reasoning MeitY could tell a browser not to switch on a privacy setting by default, or a payments app not to add a login method, each time until it was content. The notice also invokes traceability, through Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules, 2021 and the identification of the "first originator" of a message. Rule 4(2) has been challenged as exceeding its parent provision and resting on no law made by Parliament, and that challenge is pending before the Delhi High Court. Raising it against a feature meant to share fewer identifiers fits a pattern.

We ask MeitY to state the exact provision of law under which this notice, and the direction to halt the roll-out, has been issued, and to withdraw that direction. It should stop using Section 79 and the contested traceability rule as leverage to control product design and to reverse features that improve privacy. Impersonation and fraud are real risks, but they are met by enforcing the criminal law against those who commit them, and by open processes that rest on identified legal powers. They are not met by MeitY deciding, in private and by letter, what features Indians may use. That is a licence raj for software features.

New Delhi, 1 July 2026

[Rohit @sudoRohitt]

@ndtv Is that why they cut trees nowadays?

[Rohit @sudoRohitt]

@ndtv Is that why they cut trees nowadays?