Even a voluminous letter may have very little by way of substance. The Union information technology minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, recently shot off a missive — it was well over 900 words — to Mark Zuckerberg, lecturing the CEO of Facebook on the alleged ideological tilt of some of his employees in India. Among Mr Prasad’s allegations are such charges as the Facebook team, including senior officials, being dominated by “people who belong to a particular political belief” and that the company’s employees abuse the prime minister and cabinet ministers. Mr Prasad, characteristically, did not provide evidence to substantiate his claims. Strangely, one of his colleagues had even taken the pains to split procedural hair and object to the parliamentary panel’s decision to grill Facebook’s representative. Of course, offence, the Bharatiya Janata Party has always believed, is the best form of defence in terms of political strategy. Mr Prasad’s hand may have been forced by the damaging revelations made by respected international media — The Wall Street Journal and Time Magazine — that reported not only Facebook’s enthusiastic endorsement of Narendra Modi’s political campaign but also its willingness to condone hate speeches of BJP leaders. This kind of complicity on the part of Facebook is not peculiar to its Indian market. There have been persistent whispers that Mr Zuckerberg’s firm shares rather cosy ties with predominantly right-wing regimes that run the levers of power in many countries. The United States of America, Mr Zuckerberg’s critics say, is another example of such an unholy, but influential, alliance.

The truth of the matter — Facebook’s ideological tilt — can only be established after a fair investigation. But the worry — the charges and counter-charges are an affirmation — lies elsewhere. Facebook’s massive reach — it is the world’s largest social media platform — and its ability to influence the choices — economic or political — of its users have transformed it into a behemoth that can condition and even alter political realities. This makes Facebook attractive as an ally for the political fraternity. Such bonhomie can lead to patronage, which, in turn, can undermine the principles of neutrality and ethics. There is an allied concern. Dubious claims are increasingly being made along with the argument that challenging or refuting such accusations would be tantamount to an infringement of free speech. This is as curious as the contents of Mr Prasad’s letter.