#FactCheck - Viral Post of Gautam Adani’s Public Arrest Found to Be AI-Generated

Introduction

In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.

Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide

The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality. 

Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of  individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.

Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.

DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively),  in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption. 

Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.

Policy Recommendations

Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.

In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.

However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools,  should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.

References

• https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/ 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over). 
• https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html 
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf 
• https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/ 

Executive Summary:

A viral claim circulating on social media suggests that the Indian government is offering a 50% subsidy on tractor purchases under the so-called "Kisan Tractor Yojana." However, our research reveals that the website promoting this scheme, allegedly under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, is misleading. This report aims to inform readers about the deceptive nature of this claim and emphasize the importance of safeguarding personal information against fraudulent schemes.

‍

‍

Claim:

A website has been circulating misleading information, claiming that the Indian government is offering a 50% subsidy on tractor purchases under the so-called "Kisan Tractor Yojana." Additionally, a YouTube video promoting this scheme suggests that individuals can apply by submitting certain documents and paying a small, supposedly refundable application fee. 

‍

‍

Fact Check: 

‍

Our research has confirmed that there is no scheme by the Government of India named 'PM Kisan Tractor Yojana.' The circulating announcement is false and appears to be an attempt to defraud farmers through fraudulent means.

While the government does provide various agricultural subsidies under recognized schemes such as the PM Kisan Samman Nidhi and the Sub-Mission on Agricultural Mechanization (SMAM), no such initiative under the name 'PM Kisan Tractor Yojana' exists. This misleading claim is, therefore, a phishing attempt aimed at deceiving farmers and unlawfully collecting their personal or financial information.

Farmers and stakeholders are advised to rely only on official government sources for scheme-related information and to exercise caution against such deceptive practices.

To assess the authenticity of the “PM Kisan Tractor Yojana” claim, we reviewed the websites farmertractoryojana.in and tractoryojana.in. Our analysis revealed several inconsistencies, indicating that these websites are fraudulent.

As part of our verification process, we evaluated tractoryojana.in using Scam Detector to determine its trustworthiness. The results showed a low trust score, raising concerns about its legitimacy. Similarly, we conducted the same check for farmertractoryojana.in, which also appeared untrustworthy and risky. The detailed results of these assessments are attached below.

Given that these websites falsely present themselves as government-backed initiatives, our findings strongly suggest that they are part of a fraudulent scheme designed to mislead and exploit individuals seeking genuine agricultural subsidies.

‍

‍

During our research, we examined the "How it Works" section of the website, which outlines the application process for the alleged “PM Kisan Tractor Yojana.” Notably, applicants are required to pay a refundable application fee to proceed with their registration. It is important to emphasize that no legitimate government subsidy program requires applicants to pay a refundable application fee.

‍

‍

Our research found that the address listed on the website, “69A, Hanuman Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai 400057,” is not associated with any government office or agricultural subsidy program. This further confirms the website’s fraudulent nature. Farmers should verify subsidy programs through official government sources to avoid scams.

‍

‍

A key inconsistency is the absence of a verified social media presence. Most legitimate government programs maintain official social media accounts for updates and communication. However, these websites fail to provide any such official handles, further casting doubt on their authenticity.

‍

‍

Upon attempting to log in, both websites redirect to the same page, suggesting they may be operated by the same entity or individual. This further raises concerns about their legitimacy and reinforces the likelihood of fraudulent activity.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

Our research confirms that the "PM Kisan Tractor Yojana" claim is fraudulent. No such government scheme exists, and the websites promoting it exhibit multiple red flags, including low trust scores, a misleading application process requiring a refundable fee, a false address, and the absence of an official social media presence. Additionally, both websites redirect to the same page, suggesting they are operated by the same entity. Farmers are advised to rely on official government sources to avoid falling victim to such scams.

• Claim: PM-Kisan Tractor Yojana Government Offering Subsidy on tractors.
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check:  False and Misleading 

‍

‍

Introduction

Misinformation spreads differently with respect to different host environments, making localised cultural narratives and practices major factors in how an individual deals with it when presented in a certain place and to a certain group. In the digital age, with time-sensitive data, an overload of information creates a lot of noise which makes it harder to make informed decisions. There are also cases where customary beliefs, biases, and cultural narratives are presented in ways that are untrue. These instances often include misinformation related to health and superstitions, historical distortions, and natural disasters and myths. Such narratives, when shared on social media, can lead to widespread misconceptions and even harmful behaviours. For example, it may also include misinformation that goes against scientific consensus or misinformation that contradicts simple, objectively true facts. In such ambiguous situations, there is a higher probability of people falling back on patterns in determining what information is right or wrong. Here, cultural narratives and cognitive biases come into play.

Misinformation and Cultural Narratives

Cultural narratives include deep-seated cultural beliefs, folklore, and national myths. These narratives can also be used to manipulate public opinion as political and social groups often leverage them to proceed with their agenda. Lack of digital literacy and increasing information online along with social media platforms and their focus on generating algorithms for engagement aids this process. The consequences can even prove to be fatal.

During COVID-19, false claims targeted certain groups as being virus spreaders fueled stigmatisation and eroded trust. Similarly, vaccine misinformation, rooted in cultural fears, spurred hesitancy and outbreaks. Beyond health, manipulated narratives about parts of history are spread depending on the sentiments of the people. These instances exploit emotional and cultural sensitivities, emphasizing the urgent need for media literacy and awareness to counter their harmful effects.

CyberPeace Recommendations

As cultural narratives may lead to knowingly or unknowingly spreading misinformation on social media platforms, netizens must consider preventive measures that can help them build resilience against any biased misinformation they may encounter. The social media platforms must also develop strategies to counter such types of misinformation.

• Digital and Information Literacy: Netizens must encourage developing digital and information literacy in a time of information overload on social media platforms. 
• The Role Of Media: The media outlets can play an active role, by strictly providing fact-based information and not feeding into narratives to garner eyeballs. Social media platforms also need to be careful while creating algorithms focused on consistent engagement.
• Community Fact-Checking: As localised information prevails in such cases, owing to the time-sensitive nature, immediate debunking of precarious information by authorities at the ground level is encouraged.
• Scientifically Correct Information: Starting early and addressing myths and biases through factual and scientifically correct information is also encouraged. 

Conclusion

Cultural narratives are an ingrained part of society, and they might affect how misinformation spreads and what we end up believing. Acknowledging this process and taking counter measures will allow us to move further and take steps for intervention regarding tackling the spread of misinformation specifically aided by cultural narratives. Efforts to raise awareness and educate the public to seek sound information, practice verification checks, and visit official channels are of the utmost importance.

References

• https://www.icf.com/insights/cybersecurity/developing-effective-responses-to-fake-new
• https://www.dw.com/en/india-fake-news-problem-fueled-by-digital-illiteracy/a-56746776
• https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/how-why-misinformation-spreads

‍