#FactCheck -AI-Generated Image Falsely Linked to Kotdwar Shop Controversy

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍

Executive Summary

‍
A video of BJP MP Ravi Kishan is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that the Gorakhpur MP was mocking Prime Minister Narendra Modi and criticizing his working style and frequent foreign visits.In the viral clip, Ravi Kishan can be heard saying that “he likes to travel,” “comes to Parliament only for a few minutes,” and does not like pressure or responsibility. The clip also features him using phrases such as “azad panchhi” (free bird) and “azad parinda.” However, CyberPeace Research Wingresearch found the claim to be misleading. The research revealed that in the original video, Ravi Kishan was actually criticizing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. A cropped portion of his statement is being shared out of context with a false claim.

‍

Claim

‍

An X (formerly Twitter) user shared the viral clip and wrote that Ravi Kishan was referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, alleging that Modi enjoys travelling abroad, spends little time in Parliament, and feels uncomfortable under pressure.

• https://x.com/Aarti202/status/2058523226305900586 
• https://archive.ph/j5MaV

Fact Check
‍

To verify the viral claim, we performed a reverse search using key frames from the video. During the research, we found the original video uploaded on the Facebook page of ANI on May 13, 2026.

The caption of the post read:“War does not seem to be ending…” Ravi Kishan warns the country about the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.At around the 4-minute-40-second timestamp, an ANI reporter asks Ravi Kishan about Rahul Gandhi distancing himself from the CBI Director selection process. Responding to that question, Ravi Kishan makes the remarks that later went viral.

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/944841085092783

‍

‍

This clearly establishes that Ravi Kishan was not referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but was commenting on Rahul Gandhi. In his response, he says that “it is good that he has freed himself” and refers to Rahul Gandhi as an “azad parinda” (free bird).

• https://x.com/ravikishann/status/2058181313748926766?s=20

During the research, we also found the same video posted on Ravi Kishan’s official X account on May 23. The caption of the post stated:“Congress should now free its prince Rahul Gandhi.”This further confirms that the viral clip has been misleadingly edited and shared out of context

‍

Conclusion

‍

The research found that Ravi Kishan’s remarks in the original video were directed at Rahul Gandhi, not Prime Minister Narendra Modi. An edited portion of the video has been falsely shared with a misleading claim.

‍

Data localisation refers to restrictions in the data flow by limiting the physical storage and processing of data within a given jurisdiction’s boundaries.  

An obvious benefit contributing to the importance of data localisation is the privacy benefits it offers. In addition to this, data localisation also has the potential to safeguard sensitive data and decrease the probability of cyber-attacks. In India, data localisation has become a key issue in the last decade due to the increase in the discourse for data privacy. 

The Legal Framework in India

India passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 which directs the data fiduciaries (collectors and processors of digital personal data) to store the data of Indian citizens within India. This push for data localisation aligns with India’s position to enhance privacy, national security and regulatory control. It further requires data fiduciaries to adhere to the principles of data minimisation, purposeful limitation and consent of the data principles. Further, Section 17 of the Act prohibits the transfer of sensitive personal data to foreign jurisdictions unless they meet satisfactory privacy protection standards. 

The Reserve Bank of India, via a circular for Payments Data Regulation in 2018, has mandated that all payment data be stored in India, though it can be processed abroad. It requires the telecom sector to ensure local storage and local processing of subscriber information. It further prohibits the transferring of subscribers’ account information overseas.

MeitY’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, emphasise data localisation, specifically when it involves government or critical data. The main idea behind this is that data related to Indian citizens or government activities should remain accessible to Indian law enforcement agencies and is not subject to external jurisdiction.

Common Misinformation about Data Localisation and its Impact

Misconceptions fuel misinformation and influence public perception and policy debates. A common misconception is that all data must be stored in India. It should be noted that non-critical and non-sensitive data are not subject to localisation, and can be cleared for cross-border transfers under specific circumstances.

Another misconception is that data localisation alone ensures complete security. A robust cybersecurity approach, infrastructure and capabilities are what guarantee security and this holds true regardless of the location of where the data is stored. 

The notion that small businesses and startups will suffer the most is untrue. While data localisation policies may lead to increased costs, they foster innovation in the domestic infrastructure and services. This potentially fuels development and innovation in these small businesses and startups. Claims that data localisation will stifle global business are unfounded. 

Proper regulations for data transfers can help balance data flows, enabling international trade while ensuring data sovereignty.

Real Impact of Data Localisation

Data localisation impacts several domains and has both positive and negative outcomes.

• It can be a driver for investment in local data centres and infrastructure, thereby inducing employment generation and boosting the domestic economy. And in contrast, the compliance costs may rise especially for MNCs that need to maintain multiple data storage systems. 
• It can expedite the growth of local technology ecosystems while encouraging innovation in cloud computing and data storage solutions. On the other hand, small businesses might face struggles to afford the required infrastructure updates and upgrades.
• Law enforcement agencies will be able to gain access to data more swiftly while avoiding lengthy processes such as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs). However, it should be noted that storing data locally does not automatically ensure that they are immune from attacks and breaches.
• A balance between sovereignty and global partnerships is a challenge that emerges with data localisation. International Trade Relationships are vulnerable to data localisations where countries favour a free data flow. This can hamper foreign collaborations with companies that rely on global data systems.

CyberPeace Outlook

It is important to clear misinformation about data localisation, some strategies that can be undertaken are:

• Launching public awareness campaigns to educate the stakeholders about the real requirements and the benefits of data localisation. Misinformation about data restrictions and security guarantees should be tackled fairly quickly. 
• A balanced approach that promotes local economic development while at the same time allowing for the necessary cross-border data flows and creating a flexible and friendly business environment is important.
• India should work on international frameworks to streamline the process of data-sharing with other nations. This would protect national interests while making global cooperation easier.

Conclusion

Data localisation in India presents a valuable opportunity to enhance privacy, bolster national security, and stimulate economic growth through local infrastructure investment. Yet, addressing common misconceptions is crucial; the belief that all data must be stored domestically or that localisation alone ensures security is misleading. 

It’s vital to pair local data storage with robust cybersecurity measures and foster international cooperation. Supporting small businesses, which may face challenges due to localisation requirements, is equally important. By addressing misinformation, promoting flexible regulations, and working towards global data-sharing frameworks, India can effectively manage the complexities of data localisation, safeguarding national interests while encouraging innovation and economic development. 

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/are-data-localisation-requirements-necessary-and-proportionate/article66131957.ece 
• https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/04/how-would-data-localization-benefit-india?lang=en
• https://www.rbi.org.in/commonperson/English/Scripts/FAQs.aspx?Id=2995
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Information%20Technology%20%28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital%20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006.04.2023%29-.pdf