My personal opinions on the protests aside, this is clearly a different title from the original article.

And it's deliberately titled to make it sound worse than it is (at the moment at least).

I'm not sure how one requests a title change on HN, but that would help here.

At the time of my posting, the title on this article read something along the lines of

"Government asks Twitter to comply with orders to remove content/accounts related to farmers protests"

I added 'Indian' to provide context. And had to remove words to comply with HN's character count rule.

You can see what the original title was in the slug:

government-notice-asks-twitter-to-comply-with-order-to-remove-contents-accounts-related-to-hashtags-linked-to-farmers-protest-2362377

I was wondering (and hoping), it's just a case of the title changing on the media site.

The original title definitely sounds more inflammatory than the one they changed it to later.

Thanks for clarifying!

Not quite the offending hashtag is:

"#ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide"

So this is the government tamping down language which they deem destructive to them, particularly, one individual i.e. Modi.

It remains to be seen if 'genocide' used in any other context would elicit a take-down order.

> So this is the government tamping down language which they deem destructive to them, particularly, one individual i.e. Modi.

But it's not the government "ordering" anything, it's the court. That's the inaccuracy. Court is totally separate from the government.

It is the government that has requested the court to act:

  The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on Sunday had sought "emergency blocking of 257 URLs and 1 Hashtag under section 69 A of the Information Technology Act," as per an official statement,