DPDP Bill 2023 A Comparative Analysis

Introduction

In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.

Brief Analysis of Prebunking 

Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation. 

The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it. 

The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.

There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution. 

Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions. 

Brief Analysis of Debunking 

Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem. 

Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.

Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts.  Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation.  Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.

Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis

Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions. 

1. Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions. 
2. Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
3. User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
4. Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.

Conclusion

The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential.  Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape. 

References

1. https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
2. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
3. https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
4. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/

‍

Introduction

With the increasing reliance on digital technologies in the banking industry, cyber threats have become a significant concern. Cyberlaw plays a crucial role in safeguarding the banking sector from cybercrimes and ensuring the security and integrity of financial systems.

The banking industry has witnessed a rapid digital transformation, enabling convenient services and greater access to financial resources. However, this digitalisation also exposes the industry to cyber threats, necessitating the formulation and implementation of effective cyber law frameworks.

Recent Trends in the Banking Industry

Digital Transformation: The banking industry has embraced digital technologies, such as mobile banking, internet banking, and financial apps, to enhance customer experience and operational efficiency.

Open Banking: The concept of open banking has gained prominence, enabling data sharing between banks and third-party service providers, which introduces new cyber risks.

How Cyber Law Helps the Banking Sector

The banking sector and cyber crime share an unspoken synergy due to the mass digitisation of banking services. Thanks to QR codes, UPI and online banking payments, India is now home to 40% of global online banking transactions. Some critical aspects of the cyber law and banking sector are as follows:

Data Protection: Cyberlaw mandates banks to implement robust data protection measures, including encryption, access controls, and regular security audits, to safeguard customer data.

Incident Response and Reporting: Cyberlaw requires banks to establish incident response plans, promptly report cyber incidents to regulatory authorities, and cooperate in investigations.

Customer Protection: Cyberlaw enforces regulations related to online banking fraud, identity theft, and unauthorised transactions, ensuring that customers are protected from cybercrimes.

Legal Framework: Cyberlaw provides a legal foundation for digitalisation in the banking sector, assuring customers that regulations protect their digital transactions and data.

Cybersecurity Training and Awareness: Cyberlaw encourages banks to conduct regular training programs and create awareness among employees and customers about cyber threats, safe digital practices, and reporting procedures.

RBI Guidelines

The RBI, as India’s central banking institution, has issued comprehensive guidelines to enhance cyber resilience in the banking industry. These guidelines address various aspects, including:

Technology Risk Management

Cyber Security Framework

IT Governance

Cyber Crisis Management Plan

Incident Reporting and Response

Recent Trends in Banking Sector Frauds and the Role of Cyber Law

Phishing Attacks: Cyberlaw helps banks combat phishing attacks by imposing penalties on perpetrators and mandating preventive measures like two-factor authentication.

Insider Threats: Cyberlaw regulations emphasise the need for stringent access controls, employee background checks, and legal consequences for insiders involved in fraudulent activities.

Ransomware Attacks: Cyberlaw frameworks assist banks in dealing with ransomware attacks by enabling legal actions against hackers and promoting preventive measures, such as regular software updates and data backups.

Master Directions on Cyber Resilience and Digital Payment Security Controls for Payment System Operators (PSOs)

Draft of Master Directions on Cyber Resilience and Digital Payment Security Controls for Payment System Operators (PSOs) issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The directions provide guidelines and requirements for PSOs to improve the safety and security of their payment systems, with a focus on cyber resilience. These guidelines for PSOs include mobile payment service providers like Paytm or digital wallet payment platforms.

Here are the highlights-

The Directions aim to improve the safety and security of payment systems operated by PSOs by providing a framework for overall information security preparedness, with an emphasis on cyber resilience.

The Directions apply to all authorised non-bank PSOs.

PSOs must ensure adherence to these Directions by unregulated entities in their digital payments ecosystem, such as payment gateways, third-party service providers, vendors, and merchants.

The PSO’s Board of Directors is responsible for ensuring adequate oversight over information security risks, including cyber risk and cyber resilience. A sub-committee of the Board may be delegated with primary oversight responsibilities.

PSOs must formulate a Board-approved Information Security (IS) policy that covers roles and responsibilities, measures to identify and manage cyber security risks, training and awareness programs, and more.

PSOs should have a distinct Board-approved Cyber Crisis Management Plan (CCMP) to detect, contain, respond, and recover from cyber threats and attacks.

A senior-level executive, such as a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), should be responsible for implementing the IS policy and the cyber resilience framework and assessing the overall information security posture of the PSO.

PSOs need to define Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to identify potential risk events and assess the effectiveness of security controls. The sub-committee of the Board is responsible for monitoring these indicators.

PSOs should conduct a cyber risk assessment when launching new products, services, technologies, or significant changes to existing infrastructure or processes.

PSOs, including inventory management, identity and access management, network security, application security life cycle, security testing, vendor risk management, data security, patch and change management life cycle, incident response, business continuity planning, API security, employee awareness and training, and other security measures should implement various baseline information security measures and controls.

PSOs should ensure that payment transactions involving debit to accounts conducted electronically are permitted only through multi-factor authentication, except where explicitly permitted/relaxed.

Conclusion

The relationship between cyber law and the banking industry is crucial in ensuring a secure and trusted digital environment. Recent trends indicate that cyber threats are evolving and becoming more sophisticated. Compliance with cyber law provisions and adherence to guidelines such as those provided by the RBI is essential for banks to protect themselves and their customers from cybercrimes. By embracing robust cyber law frameworks, the banking industry can foster a resilient ecosystem that enables innovation while safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders or users.

India’s online gaming industry has grown at lightning speed, drawing millions of users across age groups. From casual games and e-sports to fantasy leagues and online poker, digital entertainment has become both a social and economic phenomenon. But with this growth came rising concerns of addiction, financial loss, misleading ads, and even criminal misuse of gaming platforms for illegal betting. To address these concerns, the Government of India introduced the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act and draft Rules in October 2025. While the Act represents a crucial step toward accountability and user protection, it also raises difficult questions about freedom, innovation, and investor confidence.

‍

The Current Legal Framework

‍

The 2025 Act, along with corresponding changes in the Information Technology and GST laws, aims to create a safer and more transparent gaming environment.

1. Ban on real-money games:

Any online game where money is involved, whether it’s entry fees, bets, or prizes, is now banned, regardless of whether it is based on skill or chance. As a result, previously permitted formats such as fantasy sports, rummy, and poker once defended as “games of skill” now fall within the category of banned activities.

 2. Promotion of e-sports and social gaming

Not all gaming is banned. Casual games, e-sports, and social games that don’t involve money are fully allowed. The government is encouraging these as part of India’s growing digital economy.

3. Advertising and financial restrictions: Banks, payment gateways, and advertisers cannot facilitate or promote real-money games. Any platform offering deposits or prize pools can be blocked.

4. Central regulatory authority: The law establishes a national body to classify games, monitor compliance, and address complaints. It has the power to order the locking of violative content and websites.

‍

Why Regulation Was Needed

‍

The push for regulation came after a surge in online betting scams, debt-related suicides, and disputes about whether certain apps were skill-based or chance-based. State governments had taken conflicting positions, some banning, others licensing such games. Meanwhile, offshore gaming apps operated freely in India’s grey market.

The 2025 Act thus attempts to impose uniformity, protect minors, and bring moral and fiscal discipline to a rapidly expanding digital frontier. Its underlying philosophy resembles that of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, encouraging responsible use of technology rather than an unregulated free-for-all.

‍

Key Challenges and Gaps

‍

(a) Clarity of Definitions

The Act bans all real-money games, ignoring the difference between skill-based games and chance-based games. This could lead to legal challenges under Article 19(1)(g), which protects the right to do business. Games like rummy or fantasy cricket, which need real skill, arguably shouldn’t be banned outright

(b) Weak Consumer and Child Protection

Although age verification and KYC are mandated, compliance at the user-end remains uncertain. India needs a Responsible Gaming Code covering:

• Spending limits and cooling-off periods;
• Self-exclusion options;
• Transparent disclosure of odds; and
• Algorithmic fairness audits.
  These measures can help mitigate addiction and prevent exploitation of minors.

(c) Federal Conflicts

“Betting and gambling” fall within the State List under India’s Constitution, yet the 2025 Act seeks national uniformity. States like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka already have independent bans. Without harmonisation, legal disputes between state and central authorities could multiply. A cooperative federal framework allowing states to adopt central norms voluntarily could offer flexibility without fragmentation.

(d) Regulatory Transparency

The gaming regulator has a lot of power, like deciding which games are allowed and blocking websites. But it’s not clear who chooses its members or how people can challenge its decisions. Including court oversight, public input, and regular reporting would make the regulator fairer and more reliable.

‍

What’s Next for India’s Online Gaming

‍

India’s online gaming scene is at a turning point. Banning all money-based games might reduce risks, but it also slows innovation and limits opportunities. A better approach could be to license skill-based or low-risk games with proper KYC and audits, set up a Responsible Gaming Charter with input from government, industry, and civil society, and create rules for offshore platforms targeting Indian players. Player data should be protected under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the law should be reviewed every few years to keep up with new tech like the metaverse, NFTs, and AI-powered games.

‍

Conclusion

‍

CyberPeace has already provided its detailed feedback to MEITy as on 30th October, 2025 hopes the finalised rules are released soon with the acknowledgment of the challenges discussed. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, marks an important turning point since this is India’s first serious attempt to bring order to a chaotic digital arena. The goal is to keep players safe, stop crime, and hold platforms accountable. But the tricky part is moving away from blanket bans. We need rules that let new ideas grow, respect people’s rights, and keep players safe. With a few smart changes and fair enforcement, India could have a gaming industry that’s safe, responsible, and ready to compete globally.

‍

References 

1. https://ssrana.in/articles/indias-online-gaming-bill-2025-regulation-prohibition-and-the-future-of-digital-play/ 
2. https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.economictimes.com/news/economy/policy/new-online-gaming-law-takes-effect-money-games-banned-from-today/amp_articleshow/124255401.cms 
3. https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/government-proposes-to-make-violation-of-online-money-game-rules-non-bailable-draft-rules-ban-/amp_articleshow/124277740.cms 
4. https://www.egf.org.in/ 
5. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?NoteId=155075&ModuleId=3 

‍