#FactCheck - Old Japanese Earthquake Footage Falsely Linked to Tibet

Introduction

On April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that cast a sharp light on one of the most overlooked yet pressing issues in modern governance—digital inequity. In a country that has a staggering 900 million Internet users, the ruling highlights a disheartening reality, a paradox that brings the “digital divide” to centre stage. While India may be the world’s second-largest online market, a significant segment of its population remains digitally disenfranchised. The judgment, delivered in response to two interconnected petitions, underscored that access to the internet is no longer a luxury but a lifeline integral to exercising fundamental rights. The court pointed out in clear terms that the government must build a digital ecosystem that is inclusive and accessible to all and attributed the right to digital access as an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 as enshrined under the Indian Constitution. 

Understanding the Context: What Prompted the Petitions? 

The judgment springs out of two writ petitions, which sought instructions or guidelines for people with blindness or limited vision and acid attack survivors, respectively, to conduct digital Know Your Customer (KYC)/e-KYC/video KYC mandated by RBI’s KYC Master Directions, 2016, which were reserved for judgment on January 28. The court delivered the judgment on April 30, 2025, emphasising the fact that true inclusion in this digital era is confounded in an inclusive digital infrastructure, and it must provide reasonable accommodation to those who face impediments due to any disability or disfigurement. 

In consonance with its view, it laid down various guidelines that ensure that all persons with disabilities or acid attack survivors are treated even when digital processes are involved in accordance with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “RPwD Act”)

Another major observation made by the Honourable SC judges is that the mode of facilitation of government services is through digital platforms, i.e., e-governance, and access to all these welfare schemes is the right of every citizen, irrespective of the fact that they suffer from any disability. The failure of the provisioning of e-governance of these facilities to these individuals is a gross failure of the objectives of these schemes. 

Key Observations and Directives

The court directed the government to release fresh guidelines that establish alternative methods to conduct digital KYC/e-KYC for all persons who suffer any impairment, low vision, or disfigurement with greater sensitivity, particularly for acid-attack survivors. The court made its intention very clear that the right to digital access is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty. All the tasks that are included within the ambit of digital KYC, such as pen-on-paper signatures, screen signatures, and the brief window for OTP entry, create an inaccessible and exclusionary framework, violating not just the dignity but the legal rights granted protection under the RPwD Act, 2016. The ruling directs a fundamental reimagining of digital governance through the lens of inclusion, equality, and dignity. 

Conclusion

The court is not mincing its words when it declares digital accessibility as a constitutional imperative; it has made it clear that bridging the digital divide is no longer optional but a legal duty. The decision marks the new beginning and a propeller of digital transformation, and a delightful amalgamation of digital access and the rights of people. The effect of this judgment will not be restricted to one class of people. Still, it will cater to all those individuals who face these obstacles on a daily basis due to the exclusionary nature of digital platforms. 

References

• https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/right-to-digital-access-part-of-article-21-supreme-court-directs-to-make-ekyc-process-accessible-to-persons-with-disabilities-290778

‍

In a recent ruling, a U.S. federal judge sided with Meta in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of prominent authors who alleged that their works were illegally used to train Meta’s LLaMA language model. While this seems like a significant legal victory for the tech giant, it may not be so. Rather, this is a good case study for creators in the USA to refine their legal strategies and for policymakers worldwide to act quickly to shape the rules of engagement between AI and intellectual property.

The Case: Meta vs. Authors

In Kadrey v. Meta, the plaintiffs alleged that Meta trained its LLaMA models on pirated copies of their books, violating copyright law. However, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the authors failed to prove two critical things: that their copyrighted works had been used in a way that harmed their market and that such use was not “transformative.” In fact, the judge ruled that converting text into numerical representations to train an AI was sufficiently transformative under the U.S. fair use doctrine. He also noted that the authors’ failure to demonstrate economic harm undermined their claims. Importantly, he clarified that this ruling does not mean that all AI training data usage is lawful, only that the plaintiffs didn’t make a strong enough case.

Meta even admitted that some data was sourced from pirate sites like LibGen, but the Judge still found that fair use could apply because the usage was transformative and non-exploitative.

A Tenuous Win

Chhabria’s decision emphasised that this is not a blanket endorsement of using copyrighted content in AI training. The judgment leaned heavily on the procedural weakness of the case and not necessarily on the inherent legality of Meta’s practices.

Policy experts are warning that U.S. courts are currently interpreting AI training as fair use in narrow cases, but the rulings may not set the strongest judicial precedent. The application of law could change with clearer evidence of commercial harm or a more direct use of content. 

Moreover, the ruling does not address whether authors or publishers should have the right to opt out of AI model training, a concern that is gaining momentum globally.

Implications for India

The case highlights a glaring gap in India’s copyright regime: it is outdated. Since most AI companies are located in the U.S., courts have had the opportunity to examine copyright in the context of AI-generated content. India has yet to start. Recently, news agency ANI filed a case alleging copyright infringement against OpenAI for training on its copyrighted material. However, the case is only at an interim stage. The final outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the legality of these language models being able to use copyrighted material for training.

Considering that India aims to develop “state-of-the-art foundational AI models trained on Indian datasets” under the IndiaAI Mission, the lack of clear legal guidance on what constitutes fair dealing when using copyrighted material for AI training is a significant gap.  

Thus, key points of consideration for policymakers include: 

• Need for Fair Dealing Clarity: India’s fair-dealing provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, are narrower than U.S. fair use. The doctrine may have to be reviewed to strike a balance between this law and the requirement of diverse datasets to develop foundational models rooted in Indian contexts. A parallel concern regarding data privacy also arises. 
• Push for Opt-Out or Licensing Mechanisms: India should consider whether to introduce a framework that requires companies to license training data or provide an opt-out system for creators, especially given the volume of Indian content being scraped by global AI systems.
• Digital Public Infrastructure for AI: India’s policymakers could take this opportunity to invest in public datasets, especially in regional languages, that are both high quality and legally safe for AI training.
• Protecting Local Creators: India needs to ensure that its authors, filmmakers, educators and journalists are protected from having their work repurposed without compensation, since power asymmetries between Big Tech and local creators can lead to exploitation of the latter.

Conclusion

The ruling in Meta’s favour is just one win for the developer. The real questions about consent, compensation and creative control remain unanswered. Meanwhile, the lesson for India is urgent: it needs AI policies that balance innovation with creator rights and provide legal certainty and ethical safeguards as it accelerates its AI ecosystem. Further, as global tech firms race ahead, India must not remain a passive data source; it must set the terms of its digital future. This will help the country move a step closer to achieving its goal of building sovereign AI capacity and becoming a hub for digital innovation.

References

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/meta-wins-ai-copyright-lawsuit-as-us-judge-rules-against-authors 
• https://www.wired.com/story/meta-scores-victory-ai-copyright-case/ 
• https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/25/meta-llama-ai-copyright-ruling.html 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348352/what-is-fair-use-of-copyright-doctrine 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2113095#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20pillars,models%20trained%20on%20Indian%20datasets. ‍
• https://www.ndtvprofit.com/law-and-policy/ani-vs-openai-delhi-high-court-seeks-responses-on-copyright-infringement-charges-against-chatgpt

Introduction 

As digital platforms rapidly become repositories of information related to health, YouTube has emerged as a trusted source people look to for answers. To counter rampant health misinformation online, the platform launched YouTube Health, a program aiming to make “high-quality health information available to all” by collaborating with health experts and content creators. While this is an effort in the right direction, the program needs to be tailored to the specificities of the Indian context if it aims to transform healthcare communication in the long run.

The Indian Digital Health Context 

India’s growing internet penetration and lack of accessible healthcare infrastructure, especially in rural areas, facilitates a reliance on digital platforms for health information. However, these, especially social media, are rife with misinformation. Supplemented by varying literacy levels, access disparities, and lack of digital awareness, health misinformation can lead to serious negative health outcomes. The report ‘Health Misinformation Vectors in India’ by DataLEADS suggests a growing reluctance surrounding conventional medicine, with people looking for affordable and accessible natural remedies instead. Social media helps facilitate this shift. However, media-sharing platforms such as WhatsApp, YouTube, and Facebook host a large chunk of health misinformation. The report identifies that cancer, reproductive health, vaccines, and lifestyle diseases are four key areas susceptible to misinformation in India.

YouTube’s Efforts in Promoting Credible Health Content 

YouTube Health aims to provide evidence-based health information with “digestible, compelling, and emotionally supportive health videos,” from leading experts to everyone irrespective of who they are or where they live. So far, it executes this vision through:

• Content Curation: The platform has health source information panels and content shelves highlighting videos regarding 140+ medical conditions from authority sources like All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Max Healthcare etc., whenever users search for health-related topics.
• Localization Strategies: The platform offers multilingual health content in regional languages such as Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, Kannada, Malayalam, Punjabi, and Bengali, apart from English. This is to help health information reach viewers across most of the country. 
• Verification of professionals: Healthcare professionals and organisations can apply to YouTube’s health feature for their videos to be authenticated as an authority health source on the platform and for their videos to show up on the ‘Health Sources’ shelf.

Challenges 

• Limited Reach: India has a diverse linguistic ecosystem. While health information is made available in over 8 languages, the number is not enough to reach everyone in the country. Efforts to reach more people in vernacular languages need to be ramped up. Further, while there were around 50 billion views of health content on YouTube in 2023, it is difficult to measure the on-ground outcomes of those views.
• Lack of Digital Literacy: Misinformation on digital platforms cannot be entirely curtailed owing to the way algorithms are designed to enhance user engagement. However, uploading authoritative health information as a solution may not be enough, if users lack awareness about misinformation and the need to critically evaluate and trust only credible sources. In India, this critical awareness remains largely underdeveloped.

Conclusion 

Considering that India has over 450 million users, by far the highest number of users in any country in the world, the platform has recognized that it can play a transformative role in the country’s digital health ecosystem. To accomplish its mission “to combat the societal threat of medical misinformation,” YouTube will have to continue to take several proactive measures. There is scope for strengthening collaborations with Indian public health agencies and trusted public figures, national and regional,  to provide credible health information to all.  The approach will have to be tailored to India’s vast linguistic diversity, by encouraging capacity-building for vernacular creators to produce credible content. Finally, multiple stakeholders will need to come together to promote digital literacy through education campaigns about identifying trustworthy sources.

Sources 

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/youtube-health-dr-garth-graham-interview-9746673/ 
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/cancer-misinformation-extremely-prevalent-in-india-trust-in-science-medicine-crucial-report/articleshow/115931783.cms?from=mdr 
• https://health.youtube/our-mission/ 
• https://health.youtube/features-application/ 
• https://backlinko.com/youtube-users