#FactCheck - Debunked: AI-Generated Image Circulating as April Solar Eclipse Snapshot

Introduction

The use of digital information and communication technologies for healthcare access has been on the rise in recent times. Mental health care is increasingly being provided through online platforms by remote practitioners, and even by AI-powered chatbots, which use natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) processes to simulate conversations between the platform and a user. Thus, AI chatbots can provide mental health support from the comfort of the home, at any time of the day, via a mobile phone.  While this has great potential to enhance the mental health care ecosystem, such chatbots can present technical and ethical challenges as well.

Background

According to the WHO’s World Mental Health Report of 2022, every 1 in 8 people globally is estimated to be suffering from some form of mental health disorder. The need for mental health services worldwide is high but the supply of a care ecosystem is inadequate both in terms of availability and quality. In India, it is estimated that there are only 0.75 psychiatrists per 100,000 patients and only 30% of the mental health patients get help. Considering the slow thawing of social stigma regarding mental health, especially among younger demographics and support services being confined to urban Indian centres, the demand for a telehealth market is only projected to grow. This paves the way for, among other tools, AI-powered chatbots to fill the gap in providing quick, relatively inexpensive, and easy access to mental health counseling services.

Challenges

Users who seek mental health support are already vulnerable, and AI-induced oversight can exacerbate distress due to some of the following reasons: 

1. Inaccuracy: Apart from AI’s tendency to hallucinate data, chatbots may simply provide incorrect or harmful advice since they may be trained on data that is not representative of the specific physiological and psychological propensities of various demographics. 
2. Non-Contextual Learning: The efficacy of mental health counseling often relies on rapport-building between the service provider and client, relying on circumstantial and contextual factors. Machine learning models may struggle with understanding interpersonal or social cues, making their responses over-generalised. 
3. Reinforcement of Unhelpful Behaviors: In some cases, AI chatbots, if poorly designed, have the potential to reinforce unhealthy thought patterns. This is especially true for complex conditions such as OCD, treatment for which requires highly specific therapeutic interventions. 
4. False Reassurance: Relying solely on chatbots for counseling may create a partial sense of safety, thereby discouraging users from approaching professional mental health support services. This could reinforce unhelpful behaviours and exacerbate the condition. 
5. Sensitive Data Vulnerabilities: Health data is sensitive personal information. Chatbot service providers will need to clarify how health data is stored, processed, shared, and used. Without strong data protection and transparency standards, users are exposed to further risks to their well-being. 

Way Forward

1. Addressing Therapeutic Misconception: A lack of understanding of the purpose and capabilities of such chatbots, in terms of care expectations and treatments they can offer, can jeopardize user health. Platforms providing such services should be mandated to lay disclaimers about the limitations of the therapeutic relationship between the platform and its users in a manner that is easy to understand. 
2. Improved Algorithm Design: Training data for these models must undertake regular updates and audits to enhance their accuracy, incorporate contextual socio-cultural factors for profile analysis, and use feedback loops from customers and mental health professionals. 
3. Human Oversight: Models of therapy where AI chatbots are used to supplement treatment instead of replacing human intervention can be explored. Such platforms must also provide escalation mechanisms in cases where human-intervention is sought or required. 

Conclusion

It is important to recognize that so far, there is no substitute for professional mental health services. Chatbots can help users gain awareness of their mental health condition and play an educational role in this regard, nudging them in the right direction, and provide assistance to both the practitioner and the client/patient. However, relying on this option to fill gaps in mental health services is not enough. Addressing this growing —and arguably already critical— global health crisis requires dedicated public funding to ensure comprehensive mental health support for all. 

Sources 

• https://www.who.int/news/item/17-06-2022-who-highlights-urgent-need-to-transform-mental-health-and-mental-health-care 
• https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/mental-healthcare-in-india-building-a-strong-ecosystem-for-a-sound-mind/105395767#:~:text=Indian%20mental%20health%20market%20is,access%20to%20better%20quality%20services. 
• https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-health/articles/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1278186/full 

‍

Introduction

In the age of digital technology, the concept of net neutrality has become more crucial for preserving the equity and openness of the internet. Thanks to net neutrality, all internet traffic is treated equally, without difference or preferential treatment. Thanks to this concept, users can freely access and distribute content, which promotes innovation, competition, and the democratisation of knowledge. India has seen controversy over net neutrality, which has led to a legal battle to protect an open internet. In this blog post, we’ll look at the challenges of the law and the efforts made to safeguard net neutrality in India.

Background on Net Neutrality in India

Net neutrality became a hot topic in India after a major telecom service provider suggested charging various fees for accessing different parts of the internet. Internet users, activists, and organisations in favour of an open internet raised concern over this. Millions of comments were made on the consultation document by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) published in 2015, highlighting the significance of net neutrality for the country’s internet users.

Legal Battle and Regulatory Interventions

The battle for net neutrality in India acquired notoriety when TRAI released the “Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations” in 2016. These laws, often known as the “Free Basics” prohibition, were created to put an end to the usage of zero-rating platforms, which exempt specific websites or services from data expenses. The regulations ensured that all data on the internet would be handled uniformly, regardless of where it originated.

But the legal conflict didn’t end there. The telecom industry challenged TRAI’s regulations, resulting in a flurry of legal conflicts in numerous courts around the country. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act and its provisions of it that control TRAI’s ability to regulate internet services were at the heart of the legal dispute.

The Indian judicial system greatly helped the protection of net neutrality. The importance of non-discriminatory internet access was highlighted in 2018 when the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) upheld the TRAI regulations and ruled in favour of net neutrality. The TDSAT ruling created a crucial precedent for net neutrality in India. In 2019, after several rounds of litigation, the Supreme Court of India backed the principles of net neutrality, declaring that it is a fundamental idea that must be protected. The nation’s legislative framework for preserving a free and open internet was bolstered by the ruling by the top court.

Ongoing Challenges and the Way Forward

Even though India has made great strides towards upholding net neutrality, challenges persist. Because of the rapid advancement of technology and the emergence of new services and platforms, net neutrality must always be safeguarded. Some practices, such as “zero-rating” schemes and service-specific data plans, continue to raise questions about potential violations of net neutrality principles. Regulatory efforts must be proactive and under constant watch to allay these worries. The regulatory organisation, TRAI, is responsible for monitoring for and responding to breaches of the net neutrality principles. It’s crucial to strike a balance between promoting innovation and competition and maintaining a free and open internet.

Additionally, public awareness and education on the issue are crucial for the continuation of net neutrality. By informing users of their rights and promoting involvement in the conversation, a more inclusive and democratic decision-making process is assured. Civil society organisations and advocacy groups may successfully educate the public about net neutrality and gain their support.

Conclusion

The legal battle for net neutrality in India has been a significant turning point in the campaign to preserve an open and neutral internet. A robust framework for net neutrality in the country has been established thanks to legislative initiatives and judicial decisions. However, due to ongoing challenges and the dynamic nature of technology, maintaining net neutrality calls for vigilant oversight and strong actions. An open and impartial internet is crucial for fostering innovation, increasing free speech, and providing equal access to information. India’s attempts to uphold net neutrality should motivate other nations dealing with similar issues. All parties, including politicians, must work together to protect the principles of net neutrality and ensure that the Internet is accessible to everyone.

Introduction

Twitter is a popular social media plate form with millions of users all around the world. Twitter’s blue tick system, which verifies the identity of high-profile accounts, has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. The platform must face backlash from its users and brands who have accused it of basis, inaccuracy, and inconsistency in its verification process. This blog post will explore the questions raised on the verification process and its impact on users and big brands.

What is Twitter’s blue trick System?

The blue tick system was introduced in 2009 to help users identify the authenticity of well-known public figures, Politicians, celebrities, sportspeople, and big brands. The Twitter blue Tick system verifies the identity of high-profile accounts to display a blue badge next to your username.

According to a survey, roughly there are 294,000 verified Twitter Accounts which means they have a blue tick badge with them and have also paid the subscription for the service, which is nearly $7.99 monthly, so think about those subscribers who have paid the amount and have also lost their blue badge won’t they feel cheated?

The Controversy

Despite its initial aim, the blue tick system has received much criticism from consumers and brands. Twitter’s irregular and non-transparent verification procedure has sparked accusations of prejudice and inaccuracy. Many Twitter users have complained that the network’s verification process is random and favours account with huge followings or celebrity status. In contrast, others have criticised the platform for certifying accounts that promote harmful or controversial content.

Furthermore, the verification mechanism has generated user confusion, as many need to understand the significance of the blue tick badge. Some users have concluded that the blue tick symbol represents a Twitter endorsement or that the account is trustworthy. This confusion has resulted in users following and engaging with verified accounts that promote misleading or inaccurate data, undermining the platform’s credibility.

How did the Blue Tick Row start in India?

On 21 May 2021, when the government asked Twitter to remove the blue badge from several profiles of high-profile Indian politicians, including the Indian National Congress Party Vice-President Mr Rahul Ghandhi.

The blue badge gives the users an authenticated identity. Many celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, popularly known as Big B, Vir Das, Prakash Raj, Virat Kohli, and Rohit Sharma, have lost their blue tick despite being verified handles.

What is the Twitter policy on blue tick?

To Twitter’s policy, blue verification badges may be removed from accounts if the account holder violates the company’s verification policy or terms of service. In such circumstances, Twitter typically notifies the account holder of the removal of the verification badge and the reason for the removal. In the instance of the “Twitter blue badge row” in India, however, it appears that Twitter did not notify the impacted politicians or their representatives before revoking their verification badges. Twitter’s lack of communication has exacerbated the controversy around the episode, with some critics accusing the company of acting arbitrarily and not following due process.

Is there a solution?

The “Twitter blue badge row” has no simple answer since it involves a complex convergence of concerns about free expression, social media policies, and government laws. However, here are some alternatives:

• Establish clear guidelines: Twitter should develop and constantly implement clear guidelines and policies for the verification process. All users, including politicians and government officials, would benefit from greater transparency and clarity.
• Increase transparency: Twitter’s decision-making process for deleting or restoring verification badges should be more open. This could include providing explicit reasons for badge removal, notifying impacted users promptly, and offering an appeals mechanism for those who believe their credentials were removed unfairly.
• Engage in constructive dialogue: Twitter should engage in constructive dialogue with government authorities and other stakeholders to address concerns about the platform’s content moderation procedures. This could contribute to a more collaborative approach to managing online content, leading to more effective and accepted policies.
• Follow local rules and regulations: Twitter should collaborate with the Indian government to ensure it conforms to local laws and regulations while maintaining freedom of expression. This could involve adopting more precise standards for handling requests for material removal or other actions from governments and other organisations.

Conclusion

To sum up, the “Twitter blue tick row” in India has highlighted the complex challenges that Social media faces daily in handling the conflicting interests of free expression, government rules, and their own content moderation procedures. While Twitter’s decision to withdraw the blue verification badges of several prominent Indian politicians garnered anger from the government and some public members, it also raised questions about the transparency and uniformity of Twitter’s verification procedure. In order to deal with this issue, Twitter must establish clear verification procedures and norms, promote transparency in its decision-making process, participate in constructive communication with stakeholders, and adhere to local laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Indian government should collaborate with social media platforms to create more effective and acceptable laws that balance the necessity for free expression and the protection of citizens’ rights. The “Twitter blue tick row” is just one example of the complex challenges that social media platforms face in managing online content, and it emphasises the need for greater collaboration among platforms, governments, and civil society organisations to develop effective solutions that protect both free expression and citizens’ rights.