Court has to have full effect. Plaintiffs, citizens and individuals cannot be forced to go courts in each country to protect their reputation. 21. He submits that Section 79 of the Act is the exception to the rule that every publisher is liable. The platforms are publishers and since they intend to seek protection and safe harbour under Section 79 upon being served with a Court order, they have a duty to implement the same. Rule 3(2) of the Rules has to be part of the user agreement, and if any content is defamatory, the same has to be taken down. Intermediaries cannot be judges in their own cause and cannot attempt to police content on their own. Since they do not claim any responsibility at the stage of uploading, the removal of content has to be without hesitation. If they question the orders of the Court, they no longer remain neutral intermediaries and are liable as publishers. He distinguishes the judgment in Ajitabh Bachan (supra). He relies upon the judgment in Niemela (supra) to argue that global blocking was sought. He submits that on a VPN network, the video on global platforms is easily available in India. While the platforms are willing to protecting trademarks and copyrights on a global basis, they are refusing to protect a person‟s reputation. The platforms have not included defamation as part of their policies and hence where defamatory content is concerned, Court orders are required. While the platforms, based on their own policies, do remove content on a global basis, they refuse to do so on the basis of Court orders. The reason for such resistance by the platforms is because the advertising revenue of the platforms depends on the number of hits they get on the shared content. Controversial content gets more hits, and thus if the said content remains, the platforms earn greater revenues. He submits that the publication in the Journal of Media Law in fact states that intermediaries CS (OS) 27/2019 Page 14 of 76