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

Introduction

Big Tech has been pushing back against regulatory measures, particularly regarding data handling practices. X Corp (formerly Twitter) has taken a prominent stance in India. The platform has filed a petition against the Central and State governments, challenging content-blocking orders and opposing the Center’s newly launched Sahyog portal.  The X Corp has furthermore labelled the Sahyog Portal as a 'censorship portal' that enables government agencies to issue blocking orders using a standardized template.

The key regulations governing the tech space in India include the IT Act of 2000,  IT Rules 2021 and 2023 (which stress platform accountability and content moderation), and the DPDP Act 2023, which intersects with personal data governance. This petition by the X Corp raises concerns for digital freedom, platform accountability, and the evolving regulatory frameworks in India. 

Elon Musk vs Indian Government: Key Issues at Stake

The 2021 IT Rules, particularly Rule 3(1)(d) of Part II, outline intermediaries' obligations regarding ‘Content Takedowns’. Intermediaries must remove or disable access to unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government notification. Notably, the rules do not require government takedown requests to be explicitly in writing, raising concerns about potential misuse. 

X’s petition also focuses on the Sahyog Portal, a government-run platform that allows various agencies and state police to request content removal directly. They contend that the failure to comply with such orders can expose intermediaries' officers to prosecution. This has sparked controversy, with platforms like Elon Musk’s X arguing that such provisions grant the government excessive control, potentially undermining free speech and fostering undue censorship.

The broader implications include geopolitical tensions, potential business risks for big tech companies, and significant effects on India's digital economy, user engagement, and platform governance. Balancing regulatory compliance with digital rights remains a crucial challenge in this evolving landscape.

The Global Context: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

The ‘EU's Digital Services Act’ establishes a baseline 'notice and takedown' system. According to the Act, hosting providers, including online platforms, must enable third parties to notify them of illegal content, which they must promptly remove to retain their hosting defence. The DSA also mandates expedited removal processes for notifications from trusted flaggers, user suspension for those with frequent violations, and enhanced protections for minors. Additionally, hosting providers have to adhere to specific content removal obligations, including the elimination of terrorist content within one hour and deploying technology to detect known or new CSAM material and remove it.

In contrast to the EU, the US First Amendment protects speech from state interference but does not extend to private entities. Dominant digital platforms, however, significantly influence discourse by moderating content, shaping narratives, and controlling advertising markets. This dual role creates tension as these platforms balance free speech, platform safety, and profitability.

India has adopted a model closer to the EU's approach, emphasizing content moderation to curb misinformation, false narratives, and harmful content. Drawing from the EU's framework, India could establish third-party notification mechanisms, enforce clear content takedown guidelines, and implement detection measures for harmful content like terrorist material and CSAM within defined timelines. This would balance content regulation with platform accountability while aligning with global best practices.

Key Concerns and Policy Debates

As the issue stands, the main concerns that arise are:

1. The need for transparency in government orders for takedowns, the reasons and a clear framework for why they are needed and the guidelines for doing so. 
2. The need for balancing digital freedom with national security and the concerns that arise out of it for tech companies. Essentially, the role platforms play in safeguarding the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution of India. 
3. This court ruling by the Karnataka HC will have the potential to redefine the principles upon which the intermediary guidelines function under the Indian laws. 

Potential Outcomes and the Way Forward

While we wait for the Hon’ble Court’s directives and orders in response to the filed suit, while the court's decision could favour either side or lead to a negotiated resolution, the broader takeaway is the necessity of collaborative policymaking that balances governmental oversight with platform accountability. This debate underscores the pressing need for a structured and transparent regulatory framework for content moderation. Additionally, this case also highlights the importance of due process in content regulation and the need for legal clarity for tech companies operating in India. Ultimately, a consultative and principles-based approach will be key to ensuring a fair and open digital ecosystem.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/elon-musks-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations/article69352961.ece
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/elon-musk-s-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations-101742463516588.html
• https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-explainer-why-has-x-accused-govt-of-censorship-3788648/
• https://thelawreporters.com/elon-musk-s-x-sues-indian-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations ‍
• https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/digilinks/2023/february/the-eu-digital-services-act---a-new-era-for-online-harms-and-intermediary-liability

Introduction

Conversations surrounding the scourge of misinformation online typically focus on the risks to social order, political stability, economic safety and personal security. An oft-overlooked aspect of this phenomenon is the fact that it also takes a very real emotional and mental toll on people. Even as we grapple with the big picture questions about financial fraud or political rumors or inaccurate medical information online, we must also appreciate the fact that being exposed to misinformation and becoming aware of one’s own vulnerability are both significant sources of mental stress in today’s digital ecosystem.

Inaccurate information causes confusion and worry, which has negative consequences for mental health. Misinformation may also impair people's sense of well-being by undermining their trust in institutions, authority figures, and their own judgment. The constant bombardment of misinformation can lead to information overload, wherein people are unable to discriminate between legitimate sources and misleading content, resulting in mental exhaustion and a sense of being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information available. Vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions are more sensitive or susceptible to the negative effects of misinformation.

How Does Misinformation Endanger Mental Health?

Misinformation on social media platforms is a matter of public health because it has the potential to confuse people, lead to poor decision-making and result in cognitive dissonance, anxiety and unwanted behavioural changes.

Unconstrained misinformation can also lead to social disorder and the prevalence of negative emotions amongst larger numbers, ultimately causing a huge impact on society. Therefore, understanding the spread and diffusion characteristics of misinformation on Internet platforms is crucial.

The spread of misinformation can elicit different emotions of the public, and the emotions also change with the spread of misinformation. Factors such as user engagement, number of comments, and time of discussion all have an impact on the change of emotions in misinformation. Active users tend to make more comments, engage longer in discussions, and display more dominant negative emotions when triggered by misinformation. Understanding the evolution pattern of emotions triggered by misinformation is also important in view of the public’s emotional fluctuations under the influence of misinformation, and social media often magnifies the impact of emotions and makes emotions spread rapidly in social networks. For example, the sentiment of misinformation increases when there are sensitive topics such as political elections, viral trending topics, health-related information, communal and local information, information about natural disasters and more. Active misinformation on the Internet not only affects the public's psychology, mental health and behavior, but also has an impact on the stability of social order and the maintenance of social security.

Prebunking and Debunking To Build Mental Guards Against Misinformation

As the spread of misinformation and disinformation rises, so do the techniques aimed to tackle their spread. Prebunking or attitudinal inoculation is a technique for training individuals to recogniseand resist deceptive communications before they can take root. Prebunking is a psychological method for mitigating the effects of misinformation, strengthening resilience and creating cognitive defenses against future misinformation. Debunking provides individuals with accurate information to counter false claims and myths, correcting misconceptions and preventing the spread of misinformation. By presenting evidence-based refutations, debunking helps individuals distinguish fact from fiction.

What do health experts say about online misinformation?

“In the21st century, mental health is crucial due to the overwhelming amount of information available online. The COVID-19 pandemic-related misinformation was a prime example of this, with misinformation spreading online, leading to increased anxiety, panic buying, fear of leaving home, and mistrust in health measures. To protect our mental health, it is essential to cultivate a discerning mindset, question sources, and verify information before consumption. Fostering a supportive community that encourages open dialogue and fact-checking can help navigate the digital information landscape with confidence and emotional support. Prioritising self-care routines, mindfulness practices, and seeking professional guidance are also crucial for safeguarding mental health in the digital information era.”

In conversation with CyberPeace ~ Says Dubai-based psychologist, Aishwarya Menon, (BA,in Psychology and Criminology from the University of Westen Ontario, London and MA in Mental Health and Addictions (Humber College, University of Guelph),Toronto.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations:

1)     Countering misinformation is everyone's shared responsibility. To mitigate the negative effects of infodemics online, we must look at developing strong legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, relying on authenticated content on mass media, and increasing people's digital literacy.

2)     Expert organisations actively verifying the information through various strategies including prebunking and debunking efforts are among those best placed to refute misinformation and direct users to evidence-based information sources. It is recommended that countermeasures for users on platforms be increased with evidence-based data or accurate information.

3)     The role of social media platforms is crucial in the misinformation crisis, hence it is recommended that social media platforms actively counter the production of misinformation on their platforms. Local, national, and international efforts and additional research are required to implement the robust misinformation counterstrategies.

4)     Netizens are advised or encouraged to follow official sources to check the reliability of any news or information. They must recognise the red flags by recognising the signs such as questionable facts, poorly written texts, surprising or upsetting news, fake social media accounts and fake websites designed to look like legitimate ones. Netizens are also encouraged to develop cognitive skills to discern fact and reality. Netizens are advised to approach information with a healthy dose of skepticism and curiosity.

Final Words:

It is crucial to protect mental health by escalating and disturbing the rise of misinformation incidents on various subjects, safeguarding our minds requires cognitive skills, building media literacy and verifying the information from trusted sources, prioritising mental health by self-care practices and staying connected with supportive authenticated networks. Promoting prebunking and debunking initiatives is necessary. Netizen scan protect themselves against the negative effects of misinformation and cultivate a resilient mindset in the digital information age.

References:

1. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/scn/2021/7999760/
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8502082/

‍

The Ghibli trend has been in the news for the past couple of weeks for multiple reasons, be it good or bad. The nostalgia that everyone has for the art form has made people turn a blind eye to what the trend means to the artists who painstakingly create the art. The open-source platforms may be trained on artistic material without the artist's ‘explicit permission’ making it so that the rights of the artists are downgraded. The artistic community has reached a level where they are questioning their ability to create, which can be recreated by this software in a couple of seconds and without any thought as to what it is doing. OpenAI’s update on ChatGPT makes it simple for users to create illustrations that are like the style created by Hayao Miyazaki and made into anything from personal pictures to movie scenes and making them into Ghibli-style art. The updates in AI to generate art, including Ghibli-style, may raise critical questions about artistic integrity, intellectual property, and data privacy risks.

AI and the Democratization of Creativity

AI-powered tools have lowered barriers and enable more people to engage with artistic expression. AI allows people to create appealing content in the form of art regardless of their artistic capabilities. The update of ChatGPT has made it so that art has been democratized, and the abilities of the user don't matter. It makes art accessible, efficient and a creative experiment to many. 

Unfortunately, these developments also pose challenges for the original artistry and the labour of human creators. The concern doesn't just stop at AI replacing artists, but also about the potential misuse it can lead to. This includes unauthorized replication of distinct styles or deepfake applications. When it is used ethically, AI can enhance artistic processes. It can assist with repetitive tasks, improving efficiency, and enabling creative experimentation. 

However, its ability to mimic existing styles raises concerns. The potential that AI-generated content has could lead to a devaluation of human artists' work, potential copyright issues, and even data privacy risks. Unauthorized training of AI models that create art can be exploited for misinformation and deepfakes, making human oversight essential. Few artists believe that AI artworks are disrupting the accepted norms of the art world.  Additionally, AI can misinterpret prompts, producing distorted or unethical imagery that contradicts artistic intent and cultural values, highlighting the critical need for human oversight.

The Ethical and Legal Dilemmas

The main dilemma that surrounds trends such as the Ghibli trend is whether it compromises human efforts by blurring the line between inspiration and infringement of artistic freedom. Further, an issue that is not considered by most users is whether the personal content (personal pictures in this case) uploaded on AI models is posing a risk to their privacy. This leads to the issue where the potential misuse of AI-generated content can be used to spread misinformation through misleading or inappropriate visuals. 

The negative effects can only be balanced if a policy framework is created that can ensure the fair use of AI in Art. Further, this should ensure that the training of AI models is done in a manner that is fair to the artists who are the original creators of a style. Human oversight is needed to moderate the AI-generated content.  This oversight can be created by creating ethical AI usage guidelines for platforms that host AI-generated art. 

Conclusion: What Can Potentially Be Done?

AI is not a replacement for human effort, it is to ease human effort. We need to promote a balanced AI approach that protects the integrity of artists and, at the same time, continues to foster innovation. And finally, strengthening copyright laws to address AI-generated content. Labelling AI content and ensuring that this content is disclosed as AI-generated is the first step. Furthermore, there should be fair compensation made to the human artists based on whose work the AI model is trained. There is an increasing need to create global AI ethics guidelines to ensure that there is transparency, ethical use and human oversight in AI-driven art. The need of the hour is that industries should work collaboratively with regulators to ensure that there is responsible use of AI. 

References

• https://medium.com/@haileyq/my-experience-with-studio-ghibli-style-ai-art-ethical-debates-in-the-gpt-4o-era-b84e5a24cb60 
• https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241018-ai-art-the-end-of-creativity-or-a-new-movement 

‍