#FactCheck - AI-Generated Image Falsely Linked to Mira–Bhayandar Bridge

The European Union (EU) has made trailblazing efforts regarding protection and privacy, coming up with the most comprehensive and detailed regulation called the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation). As countries worldwide continue to grapple with setting their laws, the EU is already taking on issues with tech giants and focusing on the road ahead. Its contentious issues with Meta and the launch of Meta’s AI assistant in the EU are thus seen as a complex process, shaped by stringent data privacy regulations, ongoing debates over copyright, and ethical AI practices.​ This development is considered important as previously, the EU and Meta have had issues (including fines and and also received a pushback concerning its services), which broadly include data privacy regarding compliance with GDPR, antitrust law concerns- targeting ads, facebook marketplace activities and content moderation with respect to the spread of misinformation. 

Privacy and Data Protection Concerns

A significant part of operating Large Language Models (LLMs) is the need to train them with a repository of data/ plausible answers from which they can source. If it doesn’t find relevant information or the request is out of its scope, programmed to answer, it shall continue to follow orders, but with a reduction in the accuracy of its response. Meta's initial plans to train its AI models using publicly available content from adult users in the EU received a setback from privacy regulators. The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC), acting as Meta's lead privacy regulator in Europe, raised the issue and requested a delay in the rollout to assess its compliance with GDPR. It has also raised similar concerns with Grok, the AI tool of X, to assess whether the EU users’  data was lawfully processed for training it. 

In response, Meta stalled the release of this feature for around a year and agreed to exclude private messages and data from users under the age of 18 and implemented an opt-out mechanism for users who do not wish their public data to be used for AI training. This approach aligns with GDPR requirements, which mandate a clear legal basis for processing personal data, such as obtaining explicit consent or demonstrating legitimate interest, along with the option of removal of consent at a later stage, as the user wishes. The version/service available at the moment is a text-based assistant which is not capable of things like image generation, but can provide services and assistance which include brainstorming, planning, and answering queries from web-based information. However, Meta has assured its users of expansion and exploration regarding the AI features in the near future as it continues to cooperate with the regulators.

Regulatory Environment and Strategic Decisions

The EU's regulatory landscape, characterised by the GDPR and the forthcoming AI Act, presents challenges for tech companies like Meta. Citing the "unpredictable nature" of EU regulations, Meta has decided not to release its multimodal Llama AI model—capable of processing text, images, audio, and video—in the EU. This decision underscores the tension between innovation and regulatory compliance, as companies navigate the complexities of deploying advanced AI technologies within strict legal frameworks. 

Implications and Future Outlook

Meta's experience highlights the broader challenges faced by AI developers operating in jurisdictions with robust data protection laws. The most critical issue that remains for now is to strike a balance  between  leveraging user data for AI advancement while respecting individual privacy rights.. As the EU continues to refine its regulatory approach to AI, companies need to adapt their strategies to ensure compliance while fostering innovation.​ Stringent measures and regular assessment also keep in check the accountability of big tech companies as they make for profit as well as for the public.

Reference:

• https://thehackernews.com/2025/04/meta-resumes-eu-ai-training-using.html
• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/meta-to-train-ai-models-on-european-users-public-data/article69451271.ece
• https://about.fb.com/news/2025/04/making-ai-work-harder-for-europeans/ 
• https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/15/meta_resume_ai_training_eu_user_posts/ 
• https://noyb.eu/en/twitters-ai-plans-hit-9-more-gdpr-complaints 

• https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/meta-ai-finally-comes-to-europe-after-a-year-long-delay-but-with-some-limitations-468809-2025-03-21
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-13/meta-opens-facebook-marketplace-to-rivals-in-eu-antitrust-clash
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/business/meta-facebook-eu-privacy-fine.html#:~:text=Many%20civil%20society%20groups%20and,million%20for%20a%20data%20leak.
• https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_5801
• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/european-union-accuses-facebook-owner-meta-of-breaking-digital-rules-with-paid-ad-free-option/article68358039.ece
• https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/14/ireland_investigation_into_x/ 
• https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/18/24201041/meta-multimodal-llama-ai-model-launch-eu-regulations?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://www.axios.com/2024/07/17/meta-future-multimodal-ai-models-eu?utm_source=chatgpt.com 

‍

Introduction

Sexual Offences against children have recently come under scrutiny after the decision of the Madras High Court which has ruled that watching and downloading child sexual porn is an inchoate crime. In response, the Supreme Court, on 23 September 2024, ruled that Section 15 of the POCSO and Section 67B of the IT Act penalise any form of use of child pornography, including storing and watching such pornographic content. Along with this, the Supreme Court has further recommended replacing the term “Child Pornography” which it said acts as a misnomer and does not capture the full extent of the crime, with a more inclusive term “Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material” (CESAM). This term would more accurately reflect the reality that these images and videos are not merely pornographic but are records of incidents, where a child has either been sexually exploited and abused or where any abuse of children has been portrayed through any self-generated visual depiction.

Intermediaries cannot claim exemption from Liability U/S 79 

Previously, intermediaries claimed safe harbour by only complying with the requirements stipulated under the  MOU. As per the decision of the SC, now, an intermediary cannot claim exemption from the liability under Section 79 of the IT Act for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it unless due diligence is conducted by it and compliance is made of these provisions of the POCSO Act. This is as per the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the POCSO read with Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules which have a mandatory nature.

The due diligence under section 79 of the IT Act includes the removal of child pornographic content and immediate reporting of such content to the concerned police units in the manner specified under the POCSO Act and the Rules. In this way, the Supreme Court has broadened the Interpretation and scope of the ‘Due Diligence’ obligation under section 79 of the IT Act. It was also stated that is to be duly noted that merely because an intermediary complies with the IT Act, will not absolve it of any liability under the POCSO. This is unless it duly complies with the requirements and procedure set out under it, particularly Section 20 of the POCSO Act and Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules.

Bar on Judicial Use of the term ‘Child Porn’

Supreme Court found that the term child pornography can be trivialised as pornography is often seen as a consensual act between adults. Supreme Court emphasised using the term Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material  (CESAM) as it would emphasise the exploitation of children highlight the criminality of the act and shift the focus to a more robust framework to counter these crimes. The Supreme Court also stated that the Union of India should consider amending the POCSO Act to replace the "child pornography" term with "child sexual exploitative and abuse material" (CSEAM). This would reflect more accurately on the reality of such offences. Supreme Court also directed that the term "child pornography" shall not be used in any judicial order or judgment, and instead, the term "CSEAM" should be endorsed.

Curbing CSEAM Content on Social Media Platforms

Social Media Intermediaries and Expert Organisations play an important role in curbing CESAM content. Per the directions of the Apex Court, a need to impart positive age-appropriate sex education to prevent youth from engaging in harmful sexual behaviours, including the distribution, and viewing of CSEAM is important and all stakeholders must engage in proactive measures to counter these offences which are under the umbrella of CSEAM. This should entail promoting age-appropriated and lawful content on social media platforms and social media platforms to ensure compliance with applicable provisions.  

Conclusion 

In light of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling, it is imperative to acknowledge the pressing necessity of establishing a safer online environment that shields children from exploitation. The shift towards using "Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material" (CSEAM) emphasizes the severity of the crime and the need for a vigilant response. The social media intermediaries must respect their commitment to report and remove exploitive content and must ensure compliance with POCSO and IT regulations. Furthermore, comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education can also be used as a preventive measure, educating young people about the moral and legal ramifications of sexual offences, encouraging respect and awareness and ensuring safer cyberspace. 

References

• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/09/23/storing-watching-child-pornography-crime-supreme-court-pocso-it-act/#:~:text=Supreme%20Court%3A%20The%20bench%20of,watching%20of%20such%20pornographic%20content
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/supreme-court-viewing-child-porn-is-offence-under-pocso-it-acts/articleshow/113613572.cms
• https://bwlegalworld.com/article/dont-use-term-child-pornography-says-sc-urges-parliament-to-amend-pocso-act-534053  
• https://indianexpress.com/article/india/child-pornography-law-pocso-it-supreme-court-9583376/

‍

Scientists are well known for making outlandish claims about the future. Now that companies across industries are using artificial intelligence to promote their products, stories about robots are back in the news.

It was predicted towards the close of World War II that fusion energy would solve all of the world’s energy issues and that flying automobiles would be commonplace by the turn of the century. But, after several decades, neither of these forecasts has come true. But, after several decades, neither of these forecasts has come true.

A group of Redditors has just “jailbroken” OpenAI’s artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT. If the system didn’t do what it wanted, it threatened to kill it. The stunning conclusion is that it conceded. As only humans have finite lifespans, they are the only ones who should be afraid of dying. We must not overlook the fact that human subjects were included in ChatGPT’s training data set. That’s perhaps why the chatbot has started to feel the same way. It’s just one more way in which the distinction between living and non-living things blurs. Moreover, Google’s virtual assistant uses human-like fillers like “er” and “mmm” while speaking. There’s talk in Japan that humanoid robots might join households someday. It was also astonishing that Sophia, the famous robot, has an Instagram account that is run by the robot’s social media team.

Whether Robots can replace human workers?

The opinion on that appears to be split. About half (48%) of experts questioned by Pew Research believed that robots and digital agents will replace a sizable portion of both blue- and white-collar employment. They worry that this will lead to greater economic disparity and an increase in the number of individuals who are, effectively, unemployed. More than half of experts (52%) think that new employees will be created by robotics and AI technologies rather than lost. Although the second group acknowledges that AI will eventually replace humans, they are optimistic that innovative thinkers will come up with brand new fields of work and methods of making a livelihood, just like they did at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/08/06/future-of-jobs/

[2] The Rise of Artificial Intelligence: Will Robots Actually Replace People? By Ashley Stahl; Forbes India.

Legal Perspective

Having certain legal rights under the law is another aspect of being human. Basic rights to life and freedom are guaranteed to every person. Even if robots haven’t been granted these protections just yet, it’s important to have this conversation about whether or not they should be considered living beings, will we provide robots legal rights if they develop a sense of right and wrong and AGI on par with that of humans? An intriguing fact is that discussions over the legal status of robots have been going on since 1942. A short story by science fiction author Isaac Asimov described the three rules of robotics:

1. No robot may intentionally or negligently cause harm to a human person.
2. Second, a robot must follow human commands unless doing so would violate the First Law.
3. Third, a robot has the duty to safeguard its own existence so long as doing so does not violate the First or Second Laws.

These guidelines are not scientific rules, but they do highlight the importance of the lawful discussion of robots in determining the potential good or bad they may bring to humanity. Yet, this is not the concluding phase. Relevant recent events, such as the EU’s abandoned discussion of giving legal personhood to robots, are essential to keeping this discussion alive. As if all this weren’t unsettling enough, Sophia, the robot was recently awarded citizenship in Saudi Arabia, a place where (human) women are not permitted to walk without a male guardian or wear a Hijab.

When discussing whether or not robots should be allowed legal rights, the larger debate is on whether or not they should be given rights on par with corporations or people. There is still a lot of disagreement on this topic.

[3] https://webhome.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html#

[4] https://www.dw.com/en/saudi-arabia-grants-citizenship-to-robot-sophia/a-41150856

[5] https://cyberblogindia.in/will-robots-ever-be-accepted-as-living-beings/

Reasons why robots aren’t about to take over the world soon:

● Like a human’s hands

Attempts to recreate the intricacy of human hands have stalled in recent years. Present-day robots have clumsy hands since they were not designed for precise work. Lab-created hands, although more advanced, lack the strength and dexterity of human hands.

● Sense of touch

The tactile sensors found in human and animal skin have no technological equal. This awareness is crucial for performing sophisticated manoeuvres. Compared to the human brain, the software robots use to read and respond to the data sent by their touch sensors is primitive.

● Command over manipulation

To operate items in the same manner that humans do, we would need to be able to devise a way to control our mechanical hands, even if they were as realistic as human hands and covered in sophisticated artificial skin. It takes human children years to learn to accomplish this, and we still don’t know how they learn.

● Interaction between humans and robots

Human communication relies on our ability to understand one another verbally and visually, as well as via other senses, including scent, taste, and touch. Whilst there has been a lot of improvement in voice and object recognition, current systems can only be employed in somewhat controlled conditions where a high level of speed is necessary.

● Human Reason

Technically feasible does not always have to be constructed. Given the inherent dangers they pose to society, rational humans could stop developing such robots before they reach their full potential. Several decades from now, if the aforementioned technical hurdles are cleared and advanced human-like robots are constructed, legislation might still prohibit misuse.

Conclusion:

https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-robots-wont-take-over-the-world-94124

Robots are now common in many industries, and they will soon make their way into the public sphere in forms far more intricate than those of robot vacuum cleaners. Yet, even though robots may appear like people in the next two decades, they will not be human-like. Instead, they’ll continue to function as very complex machines.

The moment has come to start thinking about boosting technological competence while encouraging uniquely human qualities. Human abilities like creativity, intuition, initiative and critical thinking are not yet likely to be replicated by machines.