Read the following passage and answer the question
A lot of avoidable excitement, or anxiety, depending on which side of the political fence one sits, has been caused by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of the Union of India vs Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. delivered on Thursday. While sitting in judgement on the limited question of whether IGST can be levied on ocean freight paid by a foreign seller to a foreign shipping line on reverse charge basis, the SC bench comprising Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath dwelt at length on the constitutional framework of GST law, and concepts such as co-operative federalism, un-co-operative federalism and fiscal federalism and came to the conclusion that recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Centre or the States. It is not evident if the scholarly exposition was warranted while deciding the limited question pertaining to the case but the fact is that the Court has only spelt out what is clearly evident from reading Articles 246A and 279A of the Constitution.. In simple terms, Parliament and State Legislatures have simultaneous powers to legislate under the GST. The Centre has, for obvious reasons, sought to play down the judgment as not interpreting anything new and has underlined that individual States have always complied with decisions made in the GST Council even when such decisions went against their interests. The last thing the Centre wants is for some States to legislate their own tax laws that run counter to the GST. That would begin the process of collapse of the GST which, warts and all, has aided in formalisation of the economy, improving collections and in helping tax-payers avoid the cascading effects of multiple indirect levies. While it may be tempting for some States to break out and legislate on their own, they should realise that in the long run such an act will work against their own interests, besides causing avoidable chaos for tax-payers. The benefits of a common national market for goods and services and profiting from the systemic efficiencies that this confers will be lost as check-posts re-emerge at State borders. Investors would migrate out of such States due to complexities in doing business. Though only five years have lapsed since its introduction, it may be time already for reform of the GST. What we need is statesmanship at the GST Council even if the Court has said that the Council is a place as much for political contestation as for co-operative federalism. Taking this literally will spell trouble for the Union; there are other forums for political contestation. The Council should transcend political rivalries of the day. The point is that States should have the right to dissent in the Council and their voice should not be drowned in the pursuit of unanimity in decision-making. The Centre can set an example by accommodating the demands of the States in the Council even if it means some sacrifice on its part. After all, the onus is on it to run the Council harmoniously. If the GST has made the tax-payer's life better — and it certainly has then the responsibility is on the Centre and the States to make it work. That's also in their best interests.
What is the main message of the above passage?
Meta is recalibrating content on its social media platforms as the political tide has turned in Washington, with Mark Zuckerberg announcing last week that his company plans to fire its US fact-checkers. Fact-checking evolved in response to allegations of misinformation and is being watered down in response to accusations of censorship. Social media does not have solutions to either. Community review — introduced by Elon Musk at X and planned by Zuckerberg for Facebook and Instagram — is not a significant improvement over fact-checking. Having Washington lean on foreign governments over content moderation does not benefit free speech. Yet, that is the nature of the social media beast, designed to amplify bias.
Information and misinformation continue to jostle on social media at the mercy of user discretion. Social media now has enough control over all other forms of media to broaden its reach. It is the connective tissue for mass consumption of entertainment, and alternative platforms are reworking their engagement with social media. Technologies are shaping up to drive this advantage further through synthetic content targeted precisely at its intended audience. Meta’s algorithm will now play up politics because it is the flavour of the season.
The Achilles’ Heel of social media is informed choice which could turn against misinformation. Its move away from content moderation is driven by the need to be more inclusive, yet unfiltered content can push users away from social media towards legacy forms that have better moderation systems in place. Lawmakers across the world are unlikely to give social media a free run, even if Donald Trump is working on their case. Protections have already been put in place across jurisdictions over misinformation. These may be difficult to dismantle, even if the Republicans pull US-owned social media companies further to the right.
Media consumption is, in essence, evidence-based judgement that mediums must adapt to. Content moderation, not free speech, is the adaptation mechanism. Musk and Zuckerberg are not exempt
According to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, commodities available for consumption are not inherently negative things. Baudrillard tried to interpret consumption in modern societies by engaging with the ’cargo myth’ prevalent among the indigenous Melanesian people living in the South Pacific. The Melanesians did not know what aeroplanes were. However,they saw that these winged entities descended from the air for white people and appeared to make them happy. They also noted that aeroplanes never descended for the Melanesian people. The Melanesian natives noted that the white people had placed objects similar to the aeroplane on the ground. They concluded that these objects were attracting the aeroplanes in the air and bringing them to the ground. Through a magical process, the aeroplanes were bringing plenty to the white people and making them happy. The Melanesian people concluded that they would need to place objects that simulated the aeroplane on the ground and attract them from the air. Baudrillard believes that the cargo myth holds an important analogy for the ways in which consumers engage with objects of consumption.
According to Baudrillard, the modern consumer ”sets in place a whole array of sham objects, of characteristic signs of happiness, and then waits for happiness to alight”. For instance, modern consumers believe that they will get happiness if they buy the latest available version of a mobile phone or automobile. However, consumption does not usually lead to happiness. While consumers should ideally be blaming their heightened expectations for their lack of happiness, they blame the commodity instead.
They feel that they should have waited for the next version of a mobile phone or automobile before buying the one they did. The version they bought is somehow inferior and therefore cannot make them happy. Baudrillard argues that consumers have replaced ’real’ happiness with ’signs’ of happiness. This results in the endless deferment of the arrival of total happiness. In Baudrillard’s words, ”in everyday practice, the blessings of consumption are not experienced as resulting from work or from a production process; they are experienced as a miracle”. Modern consumers view consumption in the same magical way as the Melanesian people viewed the aeroplanes in the cargo myth. Television commercials also present objects of consumption as miracles. As a result, commodities appear to be distanced from the social processes which lead to their production. In effect, objects of consumption are divorced from the reality which produces them.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS: Read the following transcript and choose the answer that is closest to each of the questions that are based on the transcript.
Lucia Rahilly (Global Editorial Director, The McKinsey Podcast): Today we’re talking about the next big arenas of competition, about the industries that will matter most in the global business landscape, which you describe as arenas of competition. What do we mean when we use this term?
Chris Bradley (Director, McKinsey Global Institute): If I go back and look at the top ten companies in 2005, they were in traditional industries such as oil and gas, retail, industrials, and pharmaceuticals. The average company was worth about $250 billion. If I advance the clock forward to 2020, nine in ten of those companies have been replaced, and by companies that are eight times bigger than the old guards.
And this new batch of companies comes from these new arenas or competitive sectors. In fact, they’re so different that we have a nickname for them. If you’re a fan of Harry Potter, it’s wizards versus muggles.
Arena industries are wizardish; we found that there’s a set of industries that play by very different set of economic rules and get very different results, while the rest, the muggles (even though they run the world, finance the world, and energize the world), play by a more traditional set of economic rules.
Lucia Rahilly: Could we put a finer point on what is novel or different about the lens that you applied to determine what’s a wizard and what’s a muggle?
Chris Bradley: Wizards are defined by growth and dynamism. We looked at where value is flowing and the places where value is moving. And where is the value flowing? What we see is that this set of wizards, which represent about ten percent of industries, hog 45 percent of the growth in market cap. But there’s another dimension or axis too, which is dynamism. That is measured by a new metric we’ve come up with called the ”shuffle rate.” How much does the bottom move to the top? It turns out that in this set of wizardish industries, or arenas, the shuffle rate is much higher than it is in the traditional industry.
Lucia Rahilly: So, where are we seeing the most profit?
Chris Bradley: The economic profit, which is the profit you make minus the cost for the capital you employ is in the wizard industries. It’s where R&D happens; they’re two times more R&D intensive. They’re big stars, the nebulae, where new business is born.