#FactCheck - False Claim about Video of Sadhu Lying in Fire at Mahakumbh 2025

Introduction

The spread of misinformation online has become a significant concern, with far-reaching social, political, economic and personal implications. The degree of vulnerability to misinformation differs from person to person, dependent on psychological elements such as personality traits, familial background and digital literacy combined with contextual factors like information source, repetition, emotional content and topic. How to reduce misinformation susceptibility in real-world environments where misinformation is regularly consumed on social media remains an open question. Inoculation theory has been proposed as a way to reduce susceptibility to misinformation by informing people about how they might be misinformed. Psychological inoculation campaigns on social media are effective at improving misinformation resilience at scale.

Prebunking has gained prominence as a means to preemptively build resilience against anticipated exposure to misinformation. This approach, grounded in Inoculation Theory, allows people to analyse and avoid manipulation without prior knowledge of specific misleading content by helping them build generalised resilience. We may draw a parallel here with broad spectrum antibiotics that can be used to fight infections and protect the body against symptoms before one is able to identify the particular pathogen at play.

Inoculation Theory and Prebunking

Inoculation theory is a promising approach to combat misinformation in the digital age. It involves exposing individuals to weakened forms of misinformation before encountering the actual false information. This helps develop resistance and critical thinking skills to identify and counter deceptive content. 

Inoculation theory has been established as a robust framework for countering unwanted persuasion and can be applied within the modern context of online misinformation:

1. Preemptive Inoculation:  Preemptive inoculation entails exposing people to weaker kinds of misinformation before they encounter genuine erroneous information. Individuals can build resistance and critical thinking abilities by being exposed to typical misinformation methods and strategies.
2. Technique/logic based Inoculation: Individuals can educate themselves about typical manipulative strategies used in online misinformation, which could be emotionally manipulative language, conspiratorial reasoning, trolling and logical fallacies. Learning to recognise these tactics as indicators of misinformation is an important first step to being able to recognise and reject the same. Through logical reasoning, individuals can recognize such tactics for what they are: attempts to distort the facts or spread misleading information. Individuals who are equipped with the capacity to discern weak arguments and misleading methods may properly evaluate the reliability and validity of information they encounter on the Internet.
3. Educational Campaigns: Educational initiatives that increase awareness about misinformation, its consequences, and the tactics used to manipulate information can be useful inoculation tools. These programmes equip individuals with the knowledge and resources they need to distinguish between reputable and fraudulent sources, allowing them to navigate the online information landscape more successfully.
4. Interactive Games and Simulations: Online games and simulations, such as ‘Bad News,’ have been created as interactive aids to protect people from misinformation methods. These games immerse users in a virtual world where they may learn about the creation and spread of misinformation, increasing their awareness and critical thinking abilities.
5. Joint Efforts: Combining inoculation tactics with other anti-misinformation initiatives, such as accuracy primes, building resilience on social media platforms, and media literacy programmes, can improve the overall efficacy of our attempts to combat misinformation. Expert organisations and people can build a stronger defence against the spread of misleading information by using many actions at the same time.

‍

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

Implementation of the Inoculation Theory on social media platforms can be seen as an effective strategy point for building resilience among users and combating misinformation. Tech/social media platforms can develop interactive and engaging content in the form of educational prebunking videos, short animations, infographics, tip sheets, and misinformation simulations. These techniques can be deployed through online games, collaborations with influencers and trusted sources that help design and deploy targeted campaigns whilst also educating netizens about the usefulness of Inoculation Theory so that they can practice critical thinking. 

The approach will inspire self-monitoring amongst netizens so that people consume information mindfully. It is a powerful tool in the battle against misinformation because it not only seeks to prevent harm before it occurs, but also actively empowers the target audience. In other words, Inoculation Theory helps build people up, and takes them on a journey of transformation from ‘potential victim’ to ‘warrior’ in the battle against misinformation. Through awareness-building, this approach makes people more aware of their own vulnerabilities and attempts to exploit them so that they can be on the lookout while they read, watch, share and believe the content they receive online.

Widespread adoption of Inoculation Theory may well inspire systemic and technological change that goes beyond individual empowerment: these interventions on social media platforms can be utilized to advance digital tools and algorithms so that such interventions and their impact are amplified. Additionally, social media platforms can explore personalized inoculation strategies, and customized inoculation approaches for different audiences so as to be able to better serve more people. One such elegant solution for social media platforms can be to develop a dedicated prebunking strategy that identifies and targets specific themes and topics that could be potential vectors for misinformation and disinformation. This will come in handy, especially during sensitive and special times such as the ongoing elections where tools and strategies for ‘Election Prebunks’ could be transformational.

Conclusion

Applying Inoculation Theory in the modern context of misinformation can be an effective method of establishing resilience against misinformation, help in developing critical thinking and empower individuals to discern fact from fiction in the digital information landscape. The need of the hour is to prioritize extensive awareness campaigns that encourage critical thinking, educate people about manipulation tactics, and pre-emptively counter false narratives associated with information. Inoculation strategies can help people to build mental amour or mental defenses against malicious content and malintent that they may encounter in the future by learning about it in advance. As they say, forewarned is forearmed. 

References

• https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254
• https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/download/Inoculation-theory-and-Misinformation-FINAL-digital-ISBN-ebbe8.pdf

‍

Social media has become far more than a tool of communication, engagement and entertainment. It shapes politics, community identity, and even shapes agendas. When misused, the consequences can be grave: communal disharmony, riots, false rumours, harassment or worse. Emphasising the need for digital Atmanirbhar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently urged India’s youth to develop the country’s own social media platforms, like Facebook, Instagram and X, to ensure that the nation’s technological ecosystems remain secure and independent, reinforcing digital autonomy. This growing influence of platforms has sharpened the tussle between government regulation, the independence of social media companies, and the protection of freedom of expression in most countries. 

‍

Why Government Regulation Is Especially Needed

‍

While self-regulation has its advantages, ‘real-world harms’ show why state oversight cannot be optional:

‍

• Incitement to violence and communal unrest: Misinformation and hate speech can inflame tensions. In Manipur (May 2023), false posts,  including unverified sexual-violence claims, spread online, worsening clashes. Authorities shut down mobile internet on 3 May 2023 to curb “disinformation and false rumours,” showing how quickly harmful content can escalate and why enforceable moderation rules matter.
• Fake news and misinformation: False content about health, elections or individuals spreads far faster than corrections. During COVID-19, an “infodemic” of fake cures, conspiracy theories and religious discrimination went viral on WhatsApp and Facebook, starting with false claims that the virus came from eating bats. The WHO warned of serious knock-on effects, and a Reuters Institute study found that although such claims by public figures were fewer, they gained the highest engagement, showing why self-regulation alone often fails to stop it.

‍

Nepal’s Example:

‍
Nepal provides a clear example of the tension between government regulation and the self-regulation tussle of social media. In 2023, the government issued rules requiring all social media platforms, whether local or foreign, to register with the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, appoint a local contact person, and comply with Nepali law. By 2025, major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube had not met the registration deadline. In response, the Nepal Telecommunications Authority began blocking unregistered platforms until they complied. While journalists, civil-rights groups and Gen Z criticised the move as potentially limiting free speech and exposing corruption against the government. The government argued it was necessary to stop harmful content and misinformation. The case shows that without enforceable obligations, self-regulation can leave platforms unaccountable, but it must also balance with protecting free speech.   

‍

Self-Regulation: Strengths and Challenges

‍

Most social-media companies prefer to self-regulate. They write community rules, trust & safety guidelines, and give users ways to flag harmful posts, and lean on a mix of staff, outside boards and AI filters to handle content that crosses the line. The big advantage here is speed: when something dangerous appears, a platform can react within minutes, far quicker than a court or lawmaker. Because they know their systems inside out, from user habits to algorithmic quirks, they can adapt fast.

But there’s a downside. These platforms thrive on engagement, hence sensational or hateful posts often keep people scrolling longer. That means the very content that makes money can also be the content that most needs moderating , a built-in conflict of interest.

‍

Government Regulation: Strengths and Risks

‍

Public rules make platforms answerable. Laws can require illegal content to be removed, force transparency and protect user rights. They can also stop serious harms such as fake news that might spark violence, and they often feel more legitimate when made through open, democratic processes.

Yet regulation can lag behind technology. Vague or heavy-handed rules may be misused to silence critics or curb free speech. Global enforcement is messy, and compliance can be costly for smaller firms.

‍

Practical Implications & Hybrid Governance

‍

For users, regulation brings clearer rights and safer spaces, but it must be carefully drafted to protect legitimate speech. For platforms, self-regulation gives flexibility but less certainty; government rules provide a level playing field but add compliance costs. For governments, regulation helps protect public safety, reduce communal disharmony, and fight misinformation, but it requires transparency and safeguards to avoid misuse.

Hybrid Approach

‍A combined model of self-regulation plus government regulation is likely to be most effective. Laws should establish baseline obligations: registration, local grievance officers, timely removal of illegal content, and transparency reporting. Platforms should retain flexibility in how they implement these obligations and innovate with tools for user safety. Independent audits, civil society oversight, and simple user appeals can help keep both governments and platforms accountable.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Social media has great power. It can bring people together, but it can also spread false stories, deepen divides and even stir violence. Acting on their own, platforms can move fast and try new ideas, but that alone rarely stops harmful content. Good government rules can fill the gap by holding companies to account and protecting people’s rights.

The best way forward is to mix both approaches, clear laws, outside checks, open reporting, easy complaint systems and support for local platforms, so the digital space stays safer and more trustworthy.

‍

References 

1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/need-desi-social-media-platforms-to-secure-digital-sovereignty-pm/articleshow/123327780.cms# 
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-66255989
3. https://nepallawsunshine.com/social-media-registration-in-nepal/ https://www.newsonair.gov.in/nepal-bans-26-unregistered-social-media-sites-including-facebook-whatsapp-instagram/ 
4. https://hbr.org/2021/01/social-media-companies-should-self-regulate-now 
5. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/social-media-regulation-in-india 

‍

Introduction

The most significant change seen in the Indian cyber laws this year was the passing of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, in the parliament. DPDP Act is the first concrete form of legislation focusing on the protection of Digital Personal Data of Indian netizens in all aspects; the act is analogous to what GDPR is for Europe. The act lays down heavy compliance mandates for the intermediaries and data fiduciaries, this has made it difficult for the tech companies a lot of policy, legal and technical changes have to be made in order to implement the act to its complete efficiency. Recently, the big techs have addressed a letter to the Minister and Minister of State of Meity to extend the implementation timeline of the act. In other news, the union cabinet has given the green light for the much-awaited MoC with Japan focused on establishing a long-term Semiconductor Supply Chain Partnership. 

Letter to Meity

The lobby of the big techs represented by a Trade Body named the Big Tech Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) this week wrote to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity), addressing it to the Minister Ashwini Vaishnav and Minister of State (MoS) Rajeev Chandershekhra recommending a 12-18 month extension on the implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act. This request comes at a time when the government has been voicing its urgency to implement the act in order to safeguard Indian data at the earliest. The trade body represented big names, including Meta, Google, Microsoft, Apple and many more. These big techs essentially comprise the segment recognised under the DPDP as the Significant Data Fiduciaries due to the sheer volume of data processed, hosted, stored, etc. In the protective sense, the act has been designed to focus on preventing the exploitation of personal data of Indian netizens by the big techs, hence, they form an integral part of the Indian Data Ecosystem.  The following reasons/complications concerning the implementation of the act were highlighted in the letter:

• Unrealistic Timelines: The AIC expressed that the current timeline for the implementation of the act seems unrealistic for the big techs to establish technological, policy and legal mechanisms to be in compliance with section 5 of the act, which talks about the Obligations of a Data Fiduciary and the particular notice to be shared with the data principles in accordance with the act. 
• Technical Requirements: Members of AIC expressed that the duration for the implementation of the act is much less in comparison to the time required by the tech companies to set up/deploy relevant technical critical infrastructure, SoPs and capacity building for the same. This will cause a major hindrance in establishing the efficiency of the act.
• Data Rights:  Right to Erasure, Correction, Deletion, Nominate, etc., are guaranteed under the DPDP, but the big techs are not sure about the efficient implementation of these rights and hence will need fundamental changes in the technology architecture of their platform, thus expressing concern of the early implementation of the act. 
• Equivalency to GDPR: The DPDP is taken to be congruent to the European GDPR, but the DPDP focuses on a few more aspects, such as cross-border data flow and compliance mandates for the right to erasure, hence a lot of GDPR-compliant big techs also need to establish more robust mechanisms to maintain compliance to Indian DPDP.     

Indo-Japan MoC

A Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) on the Japan-India Semiconductor Supply Chain Partnership was signed in July 2023 between the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) of India and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) of Japan. This information was shared with the Union Cabinet, which is led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Ministry of Commerce (MoC) aims to expand collaboration between Japan and India in order to improve the semiconductor supply chain. This is because semiconductors are critical to the development of industries and digital technologies. The Parties agree that the MoC will take effect on the date of signature and be in effect for five years. Bilateral cooperation on business-to-business and G2G levels on ways to develop a robust semiconductor supply chain and make use of complementary skills. The cooperation is aimed at harnessing indigenous talent and creating opportunities for higher employment avenues. 

MeitY's purpose also includes promoting international cooperation within bilateral and regional frameworks in the frontier and emerging fields of information technology. MeitY has engaged in Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), Memorandums of Covenants (MoCs), and Agreements with counterpart organisations/agencies of other nations with the aim of fostering bilateral collaboration and information sharing. Additionally, MeitY aims to establish supply chain resilience, which would enable India to become a reliable partner. An additional step towards mutually advantageous semiconductor-related commercial prospects and collaborations between India & Japan is the strengthening of mutual collaboration between Japanese and Indian enterprises through this Memorandum of Understanding. The “India-Japan Digital Partnership” (IJDP), which was introduced during PM Modi's October 2018 visit to Japan, was created in light of the two countries' complementary and synergistic efforts. Its goal is to advance both current areas of cooperation and new initiatives within the scope of S&T/ICT cooperation, with a particular emphasis on “Digital ICT Technologies."

Conclusion 

As we move ahead into the digital age, it is pertinent to be aware and educated about the latest technological advancements, new forms of cybercrimes and threats and legal aspects of digital rights and responsibilities, whether it is the recommendation to extend the implementation of DPDP or the Indo-Japan MoC, both of these instances impact the Indian netizen and his/her interests. Hence, the indigenous netizen needs to develop a keen interest in the protection of the Indian cyber-ecosystem to create a safer future. In our war against technology, our best weapon is technology and awareness, thus implementing the same in our daily digital lifestyles and routines is a must.  

References

• https://www.eetindia.co.in/cabinet-approves-moc-on-japan-india-semiconductor-supply-chain-partnership/
• https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/startup/trade-body-representing-big-tech-urges-govt-to-extend-dpdp-act-implementation-by-1-5-years-11605431.html
• https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.eetindia.co.in/cabinet-approves-moc-on-japan-india-semiconductor-supply-chain-partnership/&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoTOTI3Mzg4NzEyODgwMjI2ODk0MDIaOTBiYzUxNmI5YTRjYTE1NTpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AOvVaw2lEO7-cIBZ_ox1xV39LGLs

‍

‍