Claim That Palki Sharma’s Viral Video Questions Jordan’s Protocol Is False; Video Is AI-Manipulated

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Executive Summary:

‍

A viral video claiming to show Israelis pleading with Iran to "stop the war" is not authentic. As per our research the footage is AI-generated, created using tools like Google’s Veo, and not evidence of a real protest. The video features unnatural visuals and errors typical of AI fabrication. It is part of a broader wave of misinformation surrounding the Israel-Iran conflict, where AI-generated content is widely used to manipulate public opinion. This incident underscores the growing challenge of distinguishing real events from digital fabrications in global conflicts and highlights the importance of media literacy and fact-checking.

‍

Claim:

‍

A X verified  user with the handle "Iran, stop the war, we are sorry" posted a video featuring people holding placards and the Israeli flag. The caption suggests that Israeli citizens are calling for peace and expressing remorse, stating, "Stop the war with Iran! We apologize! The people of Israel want peace." The user further claims that Israel, having allegedly initiated the conflict by attacking Iran, is now seeking reconciliation.

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

The bottom-right corner of the video displays a "VEO" watermark, suggesting it was generated using Google's AI tool, VEO 3. The video exhibits several noticeable inconsistencies such as robotic, unnatural speech, a lack of human gestures, and unclear text on the placards. Additionally, in one frame, a person wearing a blue T-shirt is seen holding nothing, while in the next frame, an Israeli flag suddenly appears in their hand, indicating possible AI-generated glitches.

‍

‍

‍

‍

We further analyzed the video using the AI detection tool HIVE Moderation, which revealed a 99% probability that the video was generated using artificial intelligence technology. To validate this finding, we examined a keyframe from the video separately, which showed an even higher likelihood of 99% probability of being AI generated. These results strongly indicate that the video is not authentic and was most likely created using advanced AI tools.

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The video is highly likely to be AI-generated, as indicated by the VEO watermark, visual inconsistencies, and a 99% probability from HIVE Moderation. This highlights the importance of verifying content before sharing, as misleading AI-generated media can easily spread false narratives.

• Claim: AI generated video of Israelis saying "Stop the War, Iran We are Sorry". ‍
• Claimed On: Social Media‍
• Fact Check:AI Generated Mislead

‍

Introduction

Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) Announces to Centre Government to Plan to Certify Permissible Online Games.

In a recent update to the notification released by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on April 6, MeitY has requested gaming entities to establish self-regulatory organisations (SROs) within a timeframe of 30 days or a maximum of 90 days from the date of the notification, which is April 6, 2023. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has further announced that the central government will certify which online games are permissible until the SROs are officially established. The intention behind establishing SROs is to assist intermediaries, such as Apple or Google, in determining what constitutes a permitted online game, but the SRO will take 2-3 months to complete. In the meanwhile, the Central government will step in and determine what is a permissible online game.

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 & Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Amendment Rules, 2023

By enacting these rules, the Indian government has taken decisive action to protect Indian gamers and their financial resources against scams and fraud. The rules also serve to promote responsible gaming while preventing young and vulnerable users from being exposed to indecent or abusive content.

Amendment Rules developed the concept of a “Permissible online real money game.” This designation is reserved for games that have passed a review process conducted by a self-regulatory body (SRB).  Amendment rules indicate that Online Gaming Intermediaries must ensure that they do not permit any third party to host non-permissible online real money games on their platforms. This development is important because it empowers us to distinguish between legitimate and illicit real money games.

The Amendment Rules define an online gaming provider as an “intermediary” under the Information Technology Act of 2000, creating a separate classification called ‘Online Gaming Intermediary’.

Central government to certify what is an ‘Online Permissible Game’

The industry has been wondering what games come under wagering and will be banned. So, until the SROs are officially established, the government, in the interim, will certify what is a permissible game, what is wagering, and what is not wagering. Games that involve elements of wagering are going to be barred. The new regulations prohibit wagering on any outcome, whether in skill-based or chance-based games. Hence gaming applications involving wagering and betting apps will be barred.

Self-Regulatory Organizations (SROs)

According to the new regulations by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), online gaming intermediaries must establish a Self-Regulatory Body (SRO) to approve games offered to users over the Internet. The SRO must be registered with the Ministry and develop a framework to ensure compliance with the IT Rules 2021 objectives. An ‘online game’ can be registered by the SRO if it meets specific criteria, which include that the game is offered by an online gaming intermediary that is a member of the self-regulatory body, the game is not containing any content harmful to India’s interests, and complying with all relevant Indian regulations. If these requirements are met, the intermediary can display a visible registration mark indicating its registration with the self-regulatory authority.

Conclusion

MeitY found that with the rapid growth of the gaming industry, the real money gaming (RMG) sector had to be regulated properly. Rules framed must be properly implemented to stop gambling, betting, and wagering apps.

The IT Rules 2021, along with the Amendment Rules 2023, are created to take concrete action to curb the proliferation of gambling, betting, and wagering apps in India. These rules empower to issue of directives to ban specific apps that facilitate or promote such activities. The app ban directive allows the government to take decisive action by blocking access to these apps, making them unavailable for download or use within the country. This measure is aimed at curbing the negative impact of gambling, betting, and wagering on individuals and society, including issues related to addiction, financial loss, and illegal activities. Rules aim to actively combat the spread and influence of such apps and provide a safer online environment for gaming users.

The self-regulatory body in the context of online gaming will have the authority to grant membership to gaming intermediaries, register online games, develop a framework for regulation, interact with the Central Government, address user complaints, report instances of non-compliance, and take necessary actions to safeguard online gaming users.