#FactCheck - False Claim of Hindu Sadhvi Marrying Muslim Man Debunked

"Cybercriminals are unleashing a surprisingly high volume of new threats in this short period of time to take advantage of inadvertent security gaps as organizations are in a rush to ensure business continuity.”

Cyber security firm Fortinet on Monday announced that over the past several weeks, it has been monitoring a significant spike in COVID-19 related threats.

An unprecedented number of unprotected users and devices are now online with one or two people in every home connecting remotely to work through the internet. Simultaneously there are children at home engaged in remote learning and the entire family is engaged in multi-player games, chatting with friends as well as streaming music and video. The cybersec firm’s FortiGuard Labs is observing this perfect storm of opportunity being exploited by cybercriminals as the Threat Report on the Pandemic highlights:

A surge in Phishing Attacks: The research shows an average of about 600 new phishing campaigns every day. The content is designed to either prey on the fears and concerns of individuals or pretend to provide essential information on the current pandemic. The phishing attacks range from scams related to helping individuals deposit their stimulus for Covid-19 tests, to providing access to Chloroquine and other medicines or medical device, to providing helpdesk support for new teleworkers.

Phishing Scams Are Just the Start: While the attacks start with a phishing attack, their end goal is to steal personal information or even target businesses through teleworkers. Majority of the phishing attacks contain malicious payloads – including ransomware, viruses, remote access trojans (RATs) designed to provide criminals with remote access to endpoint systems, and even RDP (remote desktop protocol) exploits.

A Sudden Spike in Viruses: The first quarter of 2020 has documented a 17% increase in viruses for January, a 52% increase for February and an alarming 131% increase for March compared to the same period in 2019. The significant rise in viruses is mainly attributed to malicious phishing attachments. Multiple sites that are illegally streaming movies that were still in theatres secretly infect malware to anyone who logs on. Free game, free movie, and the attacker is on your network.

Risks for IoT Devices magnify: As users are all connected to the home network, attackers have multiple avenues of attack that can be exploited targeting devices including computers, tablets, gaming and entertainment systems and even online IoT devices such as digital cameras, smart appliances – with the ultimate goal of finding a way back into a corporate network and its valuable digital resources.

Ransomware like attack to disrupt business: If the device of a remote worker can be compromised, it can become a conduit back into the organization’s core network, enabling the spread of malware to other remote workers. The resulting business disruption can be just as effective as ransomware targeting internal network systems for taking a business offline. Since helpdesks are now remote, devices infected with ransomware or a virus can incapacitate workers for days while devices are mailed in for reimaging.

“Though organizations have completed the initial phase of transitioning their entire workforce to remote telework and employees are becoming increasingly comfortable with their new reality, CISOs continue to face new challenges presented by maintaining a secure teleworker business model. From redefining their security baseline, or supporting technology enablement for remote workers, to developing detailed policies for employees to have access to data, organizations must be nimble and adapt quickly to overcome these new problems that are arising”, said Derek Manky, Chief, Security Insights & Global Threat Alliances at Fortinet – Office of CISO.

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

Misinformation and disinformation are significant issues in today's digital age. The challenge is not limited to any one sector or industry, and has been seen to affect everyone that deals with data of any sort. In recent times, we have seen a rise in misinformation about all manner of subjects, from product and corporate misinformation to manipulated content about regulatory or policy developments.  

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) play an important role in economies, particularly in developing nations, by promoting employment, innovation, and growth. However, in the evolving digital landscape, they also confront tremendous hurdles, such as the dissemination of mis/disinformation which may harm reputations, disrupt businesses, and reduce consumer trust. MSMEs are particularly susceptible since they have minimal resources at their disposal and cannot afford to invest in the kind of talent, technology and training that is needed for a business to be able to protect itself in today’s digital-first ecosystem. Mis/disinformation for MSMEs can arise from internal communications, supply chain partners, social media, competitors, etc. To address these dangers, MSMEs must take proactive steps such as adopting frameworks to counter misinformation and prioritising best practices like digital literacy and training, monitoring and social listening, transparency protocols and robust communication practices.

Assessing the Impact of Misinformation on MSMEs

To assess the impact of misinformation on MSMEs, it is essential to get a full sense of the challenges. To begin with, one must consider the categories of damage which can include financial loss, reputational damage, operational damages, and regulatory noncompliance. Various assessment methodologies can be used to analyze the impact of misinformation, including surveys, interviews, case studies, social media and news data analysis, and risk analysis practices.

Policy Framework and Gaps in Addressing Misinformation

The Digital India Initiative, a flagship program of the Government of India, aims to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the rules made therein govern the technology space and serve as the legal framework for cyber security and data protection. The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 also contains provisions regarding ‘fake news’. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is a brand new law aimed at protecting personal data. Fact-check units (FCUs) are government and private independent bodies that verify claims about government policies, regulations, announcements, and measures. However, these policy measures are not sector-specific and lack specific guidelines, which have limited impact on their awareness initiatives on misinformation and insufficient support structure for MSMEs to verify information and protect themselves.

Recommendations for Countering Misinformation in the MSME Sector

To counter misinformation for MSMEs, recommendations include creating a dedicated Misinformation Helpline, promoting awareness campaigns, creating regulatory support and guidelines, and collaborating with tech platforms and expert organisations for the identification and curbing of misinformation. 

Organisational recommendations include the Information Verification Protocols for the consumers of Information for the verification of critical information before acting upon it, engaging in employee training for regular training on the identification and management of misinformation, creating a crisis management plan to deal with misinformation crisis, form collaboration networks with other MSMEs to share verified information and best practices. 

Engage with technological solutions like AI and ML tools for the detection and flagging of potential misinformation along with fact-checking tools and engaging with cyber security measures to prevent misinformation via digital channels.

Conclusion: Developing a Vulnerability Assessment Framework for MSMEs

Creating a vulnerability assessment framework for misinformation in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in India involves several key components which include the understanding of the sources and types of misinformation, assessing the impact on MSMEs, identifying the current policies and gaps, and providing actionable recommendations. The implementation strategy for policies to counter misinformation in the MSME sector can be by starting with pilot programs in key MSME clusters, and stakeholder engagement by involving industry associations, tech companies and government bodies. Initiating a feedback mechanism for constant improvement of the framework and finally, developing a plan to scale successful initiatives across the country.

References

• https://publications.ut-capitole.fr/id/eprint/48849/1/wp_tse_1516.pdf 
• https://techinformed.com/how-misinformation-can-impact-businesses/ 
• https://pib.gov.in/aboutfactchecke.aspx 

‍