#FactCheck - Viral Video of US President Biden Dozing Off during Television Interview is Digitally Manipulated and Inauthentic

Introduction

Personalised advertisements deploy a mechanism that derives from the collection of the user’s data. Although it allows for a more tailored user experience, one cannot ignore the method through which this is achieved. Recently, as per a report by the Indian Express on 13th November 2024, Meta has come up with a less personalised ad option on Facebook and Instagram for its users in the European Union (EU). This was done due to the incompatibility of their previous ad offer with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). 

Relevant Legislation

In October 2023, Meta came up with a “Pay or Consent” option for their users in the EU. It gave the users two options: either to pay a monthly subscription fee to avail of the ad-free usage variant of Facebook and Instagram, or to give consent to see personalised ads based on the user’s data. This consent model was introduced in their attempts to comply with the EU’s DMA. However, this was found to be incompatible with the said mandate, according to the EU regulators, as they believed that the users should not only have the option to consent to ads but also have access to less personalised but equivalent alternatives. It is this decision that pushed Meta to come up with less personalised ad options for users in the EU. The less-personalised ad option claims to rely on limited data and show ads that are only based on the context of what is being viewed i.e. during a Facebook or Instagram session requiring a minimum set of data points such as location, age, gender, and the user’s engagement with the ads. However, choosing this option also allows for such ads to be less skippable. 

The EU’s Digital Markets Act came into force on November 1, 2022. The purpose was to make the digital marketing sector fairer and in doing so, identify what they consider to be “Gatekeepers” (core platform services such as messenger services, search engines, and app stores) and a list of do’s and don’ts for them. One of them, applicable to the case mentioned above, is the effective consent required by the user in case the gatekeeper decides to target advertisements enabled by tracking the users' activity outside the gatekeeper's core platform services. 

The Indian Context

Although no such issues have been raised in India yet, it is imperative to know that in the Indian context, the DPDP (Digital Personal Data Protection) Act 2023 governs personal data regulation. This includes rules for Data Fiduciaries (those who, alone or in partnership with others, determine the means and purpose of processing personal data), the Data Principal (those who give data), Consent Managers, and even rules regarding processing data of children. 

CyberPeace Recommendations:

At the level of the user, one can take steps to ensure limited collection of personal data by following the mentioned steps: 

• Review Privacy Settings- Reviewing Privacy settings for one’s online accounts and devices is a healthy practice to avoid giving unnecessary information to third-party applications.
• Private Browsing- Browsing through private mode or incognito is encouraged, as it prevents websites from tracking your activity and personal data.
• Using Ad-blockers- Certain websites have a user option to block ads when the user first visits their page. Availing of this prevents spam advertisements from the respective websites.
• Using VPN- Using Virtual Private Networks enables users to hide their IP address and their data to be encrypted, preventing third-party actors from tracking the users' online activities
• Other steps include clearing cookies and cache data and using the location-sharing feature with care.

Conclusion

Meta’s compliance with the EU’s DMA signals that social media platforms cannot circumnavigate their way around rules. Balancing the services provided while respecting user privacy is of the utmost importance. The EU has set precedence for a system that respects this and can be used as an example to help set guidelines for how other countries can continue to deal with similar issues and set standards accordingly.

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/meta-less-personalised-ads-eu-regulatory-demands-9667266/
• https://rainmaker.co.in/blog/view/the-price-of-personalization-how-targeted-advertising-breaches-data-privacy-and-challenges-the-gdprs-shield
• https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/magazine-features/fines-data-protection-violations/
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2023/09/01/the-landscape-of-personalized-advertising-efficiency-versus-privacy/
• https://iapp.org/news/a/pay-or-consent-personalized-ads-the-rules-and-whats-next
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/how-to/how-to-safeguard-privacy-in-the-era-of-personalised-ads/articleshow/102748711.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/facebook-instagram-users-in-europe-can-opt-for-less-personalised-ads-124111201558_1.html
• https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en

‍

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Executive Summary:

A viral image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man; however, this claim is false. A thorough investigation by the Cyberpeace Research team found that the image has been digitally manipulated. The original photo, which was posted by Balmukund Acharya, a BJP MLA from Jaipur, on his official Facebook account in December 2023, he was posing with a Muslim man in his election office. The man wearing the Muslim skullcap is featured in several other photos on Acharya's Instagram account, where he expressed gratitude for the support from the Muslim community. Thus, the claimed image of a marriage between a Hindu Sadhvi and a Muslim man is digitally altered.

Claims:

An image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man. 

‍

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the posts, we reverse searched the image to find any credible sources. We found a photo posted by Balmukund Acharya Hathoj Dham on his facebook page on 6 December 2023. 

This photo is digitally altered and posted on social media to mislead. We also found several different photos with the skullcap man where he was featured.

‍

We also checked for any AI fabrication in the viral image. We checked using a detection tool named, “content@scale” AI Image detection.  This tool found the image to be 95% AI Manipulated.

‍

We also checked with another detection tool for further validation named, “isitai” image detection tool. It found the image to be 38.50% of AI content, which concludes to the fact that the image is manipulated and doesn’t support the claim made. Hence, the viral image is fake and misleading.

Conclusion:

The lack of credible source and the detection of AI manipulation in the image explains that the viral image claiming to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man is false. It has been digitally altered. The original image features BJP MLA Balmukund Acharya posing with a Muslim man, and there is no evidence of the claimed marriage.

• Claim: An image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man. 
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading