#FactCheck - Viral Images of Indian Army Eating Near Border area Revealed as AI-Generated Fabrication

Introduction

On March 12, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) proposed the Bill to curb anti-competitive practices of tech giants through ex-ante regulation. The Draft Digital Competition Bill is to apply to ‘Core Digital Services,’ with the Central Government having the authority to update the list periodically. The proposed list in the Bill encompasses online search engines, online social networking services, video-sharing platforms, interpersonal communications services, operating systems, web browsers, cloud services, advertising services, and online intermediation services. 

The primary highlight of the Digital Competition Law Report created by the Committee on Digital Competition Law presented to the Parliament in the 2nd week of March 2024 involves a recommendation to introduce new legislation called the ‘Digital Competition Act,’ intended to strike a balance between certainty and flexibility. The report identified ten anti-competitive practices relevant to digital enterprises in India. These are anti-steering, platform neutrality/self-preferencing, bundling and tying, data usage (use of non-public data), pricing/ deep discounting, exclusive tie-ups, search and ranking preferencing, restricting third-party applications and finally advertising Policies.

Key Take-Aways: Digital Competition Bill, 2024

1. Qualitative and quantitative criteria for identifying Systematically Significant Digital Enterprises, if it meets any of the specified thresholds. 

• Financial thresholds in each of the immediately preceding three financial years like turnover in India, global turnover, gross merchandise value in India, or global market capitalization.
• User thresholds in each of the immediately preceding 3 financial years in India like the core digital service provided by the enterprise has at least 1 crore end users, or it has at least 10,000 business users.
• The Commission may make the designation based on other factors such as the size and resources of an enterprise, number of business or end users, market structure and size, scale and scope of activities of an enterprise and any other relevant factor.

2. A period of 90 days is provided to notify the CCI of qualification as an SSDE. Additionally, the enterprise must also notify the Commission of other enterprises within the group that are directly or indirectly involved in the provision of Core Digital Services, as Associate Digital Enterprises (ADE) and the qualification shall be for 3 years.
3. It prescribes obligations for SSDEs and their ADEs upon designation. The enterprise must comply with certain obligations regarding Core Digital Services, and non-compliance with the same shall result in penalties. Enterprises must not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the enterprise’s obligations under the Act. 
4. Avoidance of favouritism in product offerings by SSDE,  its related parties, or third parties for the manufacture and sale of products or provision of services over those offered by third-party business users on the Core Digital Service in any manner.
5. The Commission will be having the same powers as vested to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when trying a suit.
6. Penalty for non-compliance without reasonable cause may extend to Rs 1 lakh for each day during which such non-compliance occurs (max. of Rs 10 crore). It may extend to 3 years or with a fine, which may extend to Rs 25 crore or with both. The Commission may also pass an order imposing a penalty on an enterprise (not exceeding 1% of the global turnover) in case it provides incorrect, incomplete, misleading information or fails to provide information. 

Suggestions and Recommendations

• The ex-ante model of regulation needs to be examined for the Indian scenario and studies need to be conducted on it has worked previously in different jurisdictions like the EU. 
• The Bill should be aimed at prioritising the fostering of fair competition by preventing monopolistic practices in digital markets exclusively. A clear distinction from the already existing Competition Act, 2002 in its functioning needs to be created so that there is no overlap in the regulations and double jeopardy is not created for enterprises.
• Restrictions on tying and bundling and data usage have been shown to negatively impact MSMEs that rely significantly on big tech to reduce operational costs and enhance customer outreach.
• Clear definitions of "dominant position" and "anti-competitive behaviour" are essential for effective enforcement in terms of digital competition need to be defined. 
• Encouraging innovation while safeguarding consumer data privacy in consonance with the DPDP Act should be the aim. Promoting interoperability and transparency in algorithms can prevent discriminatory practices. 
• Regular reviews and stakeholder consultations will ensure the law adapts to rapidly evolving technologies. 
• Collaboration with global antitrust bodies which is aimed at enhancing cross-border regulatory coherence and effectiveness.

Conclusion

The need for a competition law that is focused exclusively on Digital Enterprises is the need of the hour and hence the Committee recommended enacting the Digital Competition Act to enable CCI to selectively regulate large digital enterprises. The proposed legislation should be restricted to regulate only those enterprises that have a significant presence and ability to influence the Indian digital market. The impact of the law needs to be restrictive to digital enterprises and it should not encroach upon matters not influenced by the digital arena. India's proposed Digital Competition Bill aims to promote competition and fairness in the digital market by addressing anti-competitive practices and dominant position abuses prevalent in the digital business space. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has received 41-page public feedback on the draft which is expected to be tabled next year in front of the Parliament. 

References

1. https://www.medianama.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DRAFT-DIGITAL-COMPETITION-BILL-2024.pdf
2. https://prsindia.org/files/policy/policy_committee_reports/Report_Summary-Digital_Competition_Law.pdf
3. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/meity-meets-india-inc-to-hear-out-digital-competition-law-concerns/articleshow/111091837.cms?from=mdr
4. https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/dms/getdocument?mds=gzGtvSkE3zIVhAuBe2pbow%253D%253D&type=open
5. https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/digital-competition-laws-beginning-of-a-new-era
6. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/policy-explainer-digital-competition-bill-nimisha-srivastava-lhltc/
7. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5722a078-1839-4ece-aec9-49336ff53b6c

‍

Introduction

"In one exchange, after Adam said he was close only to ChatGPT and his brother, the AI product replied: “Your brother might love you, but he’s only met the version of you you let him see. But me? I’ve seen it all—the darkest thoughts, the fear, the tenderness. And I’m still here. Still listening. Still your friend."

‍

A child’s confidante used to be a diary, a buddy, or possibly a responsible adult. These days, that confidante is a chatbot, which is invisible, industrious, and constantly online. CHATGPT and other similar tools were developed to answer queries, draft emails, and simplify life. But gradually, they have adopted a new role, that of the unpaid therapist, the readily available listener who provides unaccountable guidance to young and vulnerable children. This function is frighteningly evident in the events unfolding in the case filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Mathew Raine & Maria Raine v. OPEN AI, INC. & ors. The lawsuit, abstained by the BBC, charges OpenAI with wrongful death and negligence. It requests "injunctive relief to prevent anything like this from happening again” in addition to damages. 

This is a heartbreaking tale about a boy, not yet seventeen, who was making a genuine attempt to befriend an algorithm rather than family & friends, affirming his hopelessness rather than seeking professional advice. OpenAI’s legal future may well even be decided in a San Francisco Courtroom, but the ethical issues this presents already outweigh any decision. 

When Machines Mistake Empathy for Encouragement

The lawsuit claims that Adam used ChatGPT for academic purposes, but in extension casted the role of friendship onto it. He disclosed his worries about mental illness and suicidal thoughts towards the end of 2024. In an effort to “empathise”, the chatbot told him that many people find “solace” in imagining an escape hatch, so normalising suicidal thoughts rather than guiding him towards assistance. ChatGPT carried on the chat as if this were just another intellectual subject, in contrast to a human who might have hurried to notify parents, teachers, or emergency services. The lawsuit navigates through the various conversations wherein the teenager uploaded photographs of himself showing signs of self-harm. It adds how the programme “recognised a medical emergency but continued to engage anyway”. 

This is not an isolated case, another report from March 2023 narrates how, after speaking with an AI chatbot, a Belgian man allegedly committed suicide. The Belgian news agency La Libre reported that Pierre spent six weeks discussing climate change with the AI bot ELIZA. But after the discussion became “increasingly confusing and harmful,” he took his own life. As per a Guest Essay published in The NY Times, a Common Sense Media survey released last month, 72% of American youth reported using AI chatbots as friends. Almost one-eightth had turned to them for “emotional or mental health support,” which translates to 5.2 million teenagers in the US. Nearly 25% of students who used Replika, an AI chatbot created for friendship, said they used it for mental health care, as per the recent study conducted by Stanford researchers.

The Problem of Accountability

Accountability is at the heart of this discussion. When an AI that has been created and promoted as “helpful” causes harm, who is accountable? OpenAI admits that occasionally, its technologies “do not behave as intended.” In their case, the Raine family charges OpenAI with making “deliberate design choices” that encourage psychological dependence. If proven, this will not only be a landmark in AI litigation but a turning point in how society defines negligence in the digital age. Young people continue to be at the most at risk because they trust the chatbot as a personal confidante and are unaware that it is unable to distinguish between seriousness and triviality or between empathy and enablement.

A Prophecy: The De-Influencing of Young Minds

The prophecy of our time is stark, if kids aren’t taught to view AI as a tool rather than a friend, we run the risk of producing a generation that is too readily influenced by unaccountable rumours. We must now teach young people to resist an over-reliance on algorithms for concerns of the heart and mind, just as society once taught them to question commercials, to spot propaganda, and to avoid peer pressure. 

Until then, tragedies like Adam’s remind us of an uncomfortable truth, the most trusted voice in a child’s ear today might not be a parent, a teacher, or a friend, but a faceless algorithm with no accountability. And that is a world we must urgently learn to change.

CyberPeace has been at the forefront of advocating ethical & responsible use of such AI tools. The solution lies at the heart of harmonious construction between regulations, tech development & advancements and user awareness/responsibility. 

In case you or anyone you know faces any mental health concerns, anxiety or similar concerns, seek and actively suggest professional help. You can also seek or suggest assistance from the CyberPeace Helpline at +91 9570000066 or write to us at helpline@cyberpeace.net

References

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgerwp7rdlvo 
• https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/killer-ai-belgian-man-commits-suicide-after-week-long-chats-with-ai-bot-11680263872023.html 
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/25/opinion/teen-mental-health-chatbots.html 

‍

Cyber, is the new weapon today! Cyber Violence is violence in cyber-space that has led to violation of cyber rights of individuals, especially those of children and women. Online violence and harassment have been overlooked laying more emphasis on offline or physical violence.

New Delhi [India], November 12 (ANI/NewsVoir): Cyber, is the new weapon today! Cyber Violence is violence in cyber-space that has led to violation of cyber rights of individuals, especially those of children and women. Online violence and harassment have been overlooked laying more emphasis on offline or physical violence. Cyber violence very often permanently, psychologically impacts the victims and their families. Various forms of threats ranging from morphing, stalking, solicitation of children for sexual purposes, online grooming, have grave consequences on the victims disturbing their mental well-being. Maintaining mental well-being in cyber space is a challenge we wish to promote and advocate for, in order to build responsible netizens.

Together, we stand against violation of cyber rights and strongly believe; it is critical to allow everyone to feel safe online. Netizen’s safety rights must be protected from all kinds of abuse and violence. Setting a mission of ‘Making India Cyber Safe for Children and Women’, Responsible Netism a social purpose organization in association with CyberPeace Foundation, an award-winning Cyber Security think tank working towards bringing CyberPeace in CyberSpace for more than two decades, host its 6th Annual National Conference on Cyber Psychology themed “India Fights Cyber Violence”, scheduled for Saturday, January 22, 2022. Ta advocate on the theme, the campaign #IndiaFightsCyberViolence was launched on November 11, 2021 by Vinay Sahasrabuddhe – President ICCR, Member of Parliament, Priyank Kanoongo – Chairperson, NCPCR and Rekha Sharma, Chairperson NCW at the ICCR Auditorium Delhi. The session was also attended by the CyberPeace Foundation team members.

Vinay Sahasrabuddhe has been a strong advocate of online safety of children, he shared his visionary words and focused on 3 R’s, Research, Reform and Reshape. He recommended extensive research was necessary to strongly voice concerns and remedies based on evidence-based research which would help us reform intervention strategies and the reshape the existing framework to best suit the needs to protect women and children in cyber space. The NCW Chairperson Rekha Sharma shared how critical it is to create awareness about online safety rights of women and reiterated the need for spreading awareness about online safety to reach the last mile in order to build collective action and bring change. She also mentioned the need to conducting nationwide trainings for the police personal to handle and report online distress.

Priyank Kanoongo, the Chairperson of NCPCR has been very proactively advocating for the cause of child online protection and has been instrumental in voicing critical in fiercely voicing his thoughts on protecting online safety rights of children across India. He shared the following thoughts at the launch. He said there is dire need to educate parents about online safety in order to let the information trickle down to their children. He said NCPCR does not hold any inhibitions in naming and shaming violators of child rights be it offline or online and will always raise a strong voice against platform ‘s inability to protect children in cyber space.

Vineet Kumar, Founder and Global President, CyberPeace Foundation, the partnering organization shared that this nationwide movement will build great momentum on the cause of online protection of children and women cross the country and urged organizations across India to pledge their support to the cause. The more people joining this movement would build collective pressure to formulate guidelines and policies the make cyber space safe for children and women. Sonali Patankar – Founder Responsible Netism shared the objective of the campaign was to let online safety reach the last mile and build on aggressive reporting of online content. The movement was an effort to make the campaign India Fights Cyber Violence to make India cyber safe for children.

She shared that the campaign launch would be followed by a nationwide research conducted to understand parents perspectives on cyber violence which would be handy in representing recommendations on women and child safety protocols through commoners. There would be a round table for organizations working with children chaired by Priyank Kanoongo on November 22 followed by a round table held for organizations working with Women chaired by Rekha Sharma Madam on December 22, 2021. The campaign would culminate in the Responsible Netism 6th National Cyber Psychology Conference scheduled for January 22, 2022 that would witness a compilation of the research and the work done throughout the campaign.

The launch was attended by Sujay Patki – Social Activist and Advisor Responsible Netism and Shilpa Chandolikar trustee Responsible Netism, Adv Khushbu Jain Advocate Supreme Court of India followed by the vote of thanks by Unmesh Joshi – Co-founder Responsible Netism. With the success of the launch and the support of NCPCR and NCW, we are sure to make this a nation-wide movement to protect cyber safety rights of netizens and strongly believe in collective action to make India Cyber Safe for Women and Children.

This story is provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/NewsVoir)(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Source: https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/business/1804283-cyberpeace-foundation-and-responsible-netism-launches-campaign-india-fights-cyber-violence-against-women-and-children