#FactCheck- Old Manipur Convoy Video Falsely Linked to CRPF Deployment in West Bengal

Introduction

In September 2024, the Australian government announced the  Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 ( CLA Bill 2024 hereon), to provide new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the statutory regulatory body for Australia's communications and media infrastructure, to combat online misinformation and disinformation. It proposed allowing the ACMA to hold digital platforms accountable for the “seriously harmful mis- and disinformation” being spread on their platforms and their response to it, while also balancing freedom of expression. However, the Bill was subsequently withdrawn, primarily over concerns regarding the possibility of censorship by the government. This development is reflective of the global contention on the balance between misinformation regulation and freedom of speech. 

Background and Key Features of the Bill

According to the BBC’s Global Minds Survey of 2023, nearly 73% of Australians struggled to identify fake news and AI-generated misinformation. There has been a substantial rise in misinformation on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during major events like the bushfires of 2020 and the 2022 federal elections. The government’s campaign against misinformation was launched against this background, with the launch of The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation in 2021. The main provisions of the CLA Bill, 2024 were: 

1. Core Transparency Obligations of Digital Media Platforms: Publishing current media literacy plans,  risk assessment reports, and policies or information on their approach to addressing mis- and disinformation. The ACMA would also be allowed to make additional rules regarding complaints and dispute-handling processes.
2. Information Gathering and Record-Keeping Powers: The ACMA would form rules allowing it to gather consistent information across platforms and publish it. However, it would not have been empowered to gather and publish user information except in limited circumstances.
3. Approving Codes and Making Standards: The ACMA would have powers to approve codes developed by the industry and make standards regarding reporting tools, links to authoritative information, support for fact-checking, and demonetisation of disinformation. This would make compliance mandatory for relevant sections of the industry. 
4. Parliamentary Oversight: The transparency obligations, codes approved and standards set by ACMA under the Bill would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. ACMA would be required to report to the Parliament annually. 
5. Freedom of Speech Protections: End-users would not be required to produce information for ACMA unless they are a person providing services to the platform, such as its employees or fact-checkers. Further,  it would not be allowed to call for removing content from platforms unless it involved inauthentic behavior such as bots. 
6. Penalties for Non-Compliance: ACMA would be required to employ a “graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach” to non-compliance and enforcement in the form of formal warnings, remedial directions, injunctions, or significant civil penalties as decided by the courts, subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). No criminal penalties would be imposed.

Key Concerns

• Inadequacy of Freedom of Speech Protections: The biggest contention on this Bill has been regarding the issue of possible censorship, particularly of alternative opinions that are crucial to the health of a democratic system. To protect the freedom of speech, the Bill defined mis- and disinformation, what constitutes “serious harm” (election interference, harming public health, etc.), and what would be excluded from its scope. However, reservations among the Opposition persisted due to the lack of a clear mechanism to protect divergent opinions from the purview of this Bill. 
• Efficacy of Regulatory Measures: Many argue that by allowing the digital platform industry to make its codes, this law lets it self-police. Big Tech companies have no incentive to curb misinformation effectively since their business models allow them to reap financial benefits from the rampant spread of misinformation. Unless there are financial non- or dis- incentives to curb misinformation, Big Tech is not likely to address the situation at war footing.  Thus, this law would run the risk of being toothless. Secondly, the Bill did not require platforms to report on the “prevalence of” false content which, along with other metrics,  is crucial for researchers and legislators to track the efficacy of the current misinformation-curbing practices employed by platforms.  
• Threat of Government Overreach:  The Bill sought to expand the ACMA’s compliance and enforcement powers concerning misinformation and disinformation on online communication platforms by giving it powers to form rules on information gathering, code registration, standard-making powers, and core transparency obligations. However, even though the ACMA as a regulatory authority is answerable to the Parliament, the Bill was unclear in defining limits to these powers. This raised concerns from civil society about potential government overreach in a domain filled with contextual ambiguities regarding information.

Conclusion

While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill sought to equip the ACMA with tools to hold digital platforms accountable and mitigate the harm caused by false information, its critique highlights the complexities of regulating such content without infringing on freedom of speech. Legislations and proposals regarding the matter all over the world are having to contend with this challenge. Globally, legislation and proposals addressing this issue face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for a continuous discourse at the intersection of platform accountability, regulatory restraint, and the protection of diverse viewpoints.

To regulate Big Tech effectively, governments can benefit from adopting a consultative, incremental, and cooperative approach, as exemplified by the European Union’s Digital Services Act 2023. Such a framework provides for a balanced response, fostering accountability while safeguarding democratic freedoms.

Resources

• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-misinformation-disinformation-bill.pdf 
• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation 
• https://www.mi-3.com.au/07-02-2024/over-80-australians-feel-they-may-have-fallen-fake-news-says-bbc 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/misinformation-inquiry 
• https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2024 
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-is-the-misinformation-bill-and-why-has-it-triggered-worries-about-freedom-of-speech/4n3ijebde 
• https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic#:~:text=The%20Telegraph%20Act%20allows%20authorities,preventing%20incitement%20to%20the%20commission 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/submissions/2024/11/8/submission-combatting-misinformation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation&utm_content=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation+Preview+CID_31c6d7200ed9bd2f7f6f596ba2a8b1fb&utm_source=Email%20campaign&utm_term=Read%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Law%20Centres%20submission%20to%20the%20inquiry

‍

Introduction 

Governments worldwide are enacting cybersecurity laws to enhance resilience and secure cyberspace against growing threats like data breaches, cyber espionage,  and state-sponsored attacks in the digital landscape. As a response, the EU Council has been working on adopting new laws and regulations under its EU Cybersecurity Package- a framework to enhance cybersecurity capacities across the EU to protect critical infrastructure, businesses, and citizens. Recently, the Cyber Solidarity Act was adopted by the Council, which aims to improve coordination among EU member states for increased cyber resilience. Since regulations in the EU play a significant role in shaping the global regulatory environment, it is important to keep an eye on such developments.

Overview of the Cyber Solidarity Act 

The Act sets up a European Cyber Security Alert System consisting of Cross-Border Cyber Hubs across Europe to collect intelligence and act on cyber threats by leveraging emerging technology such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and advanced data analytics to share warnings on cyber threats with other cyber data centres across the national borders of the EU. This is expected to assist authorities in responding to cyber threats and incidents more quickly and effectively. 

Further, it provides for the creation of a new Cybersecurity Emergency Mechanism to enhance incident response systems in the EU.  This will include testing the vulnerabilities in critical sectors like transport, energy, healthcare, finance, etc., and creating a reserve of private parties to provide mutual technical assistance for incident response requests from EU member-states or associated third countries of the Digital Europe Programme in case of a large-scale incident.  

Finally, it also provides for the establishment of a European Cybersecurity Incident Review Mechanism to monitor the impact of the measures under this law. 

Key Themes

1. Greater Integration: The success of this Act depends on the quality of cooperation and interoperability between various governmental stakeholders across defence, diplomacy, etc. with regard to data formats, taxonomy, data handling and data analytics tools. For example, Cross-Border Cyber Hubs are mandated to take the interoperability guidelines set by the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) as a starting point for information-sharing principles with each other.  
2. Public-Private Collaboration: The Act provides a framework to govern relationships between stakeholders such as the public sector, the private sector, academia, civil society and the media, identifying that public-private collaboration is crucial for strengthing EUs cyber resilience. In this regard, National Cyber Hubs are proposed to carry out the strengthening of information sharing between public and private entities.  
3. Centralized Regulation: The Act aims to strengthen all of the EU's cyber solidarity by outlining dedicated infrastructure for improved coordination and intelligence-sharing regarding cyber events among member states. Equal matching contribution for procuring the tools, infrastructure and services is to be made by each selected member state and the European Cybersecurity Competence Centre, a body tasked with funding cybersecurity projects in the EU. 
4. Setting a Global Standard: The underlying rationale behind strengthening cybersecurity in the EU is not just to protect EU citizens from cyber-threats to their fundamental rights but also to drive norms for world-class standards for cybersecurity for essential and critical services, an initiative several countries rely on.

Conclusion

In the current digital landscape, governments, businesses, critical sectors and people are increasingly interconnected through information and network connection systems and are using emerging technologies like AI, exposing them to multidimensional vulnerabilities in cyberspace. The EU in this regard continues to be a leader in setting standards for the safety of participants in the digital arena through regulations regarding cybersecurity. The Cyber Solidarity Act’s design including cross-border cooperation, public-private collaboration, and proactive incident-monitoring and response sets a precedent for a unified approach to cybersecurity. As the EU’s Cybersecurity Package continues to evolve, it will play a crucial role in ensuring a secure and resilient digital future for all. 

Sources

• https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/12/02/cybersecurity-package-council-adopts-new-laws-to-strengthen-cybersecurity-capacities-in-the-eu/ 
• https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-94-2024-INIT/en/pdf 
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cybersecurity-strategy 
• https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/10/cybersecurity-regulation-changes-nis2-eu-2024/

Introduction

‍

We live in a time where technological change is no longer slow or subtle. Robotics, automation, artificial intelligence, and digital systems are transforming the way we work, think, and even imagine the future. This is often celebrated as great progress. But a deeper question quietly waits behind the noise. Is every advancement truly an uplift when seen through the lens of scriptures, culture, and Indian philosophical thought? Are we creating for the good of humanity, or are we only chasing convenience and speed? And what kind of future are we actually preparing, not just for ourselves, but for those who will be born into this world shaped by these tools from the very beginning?

India has long been seen as a land that values balance, purity, and harmony with nature. Its rivers, mountains, forests, and traditions are not just geography or history, they are part of a civilizational way of thinking that connects life, duty, and responsibility. In this context, it becomes important to ask what the long-term cost of our technological appetite might be. Every invention has a footprint. Industries change landscapes. Energy demands reshape ecosystems. Convenience today often hides consequences that only appear years later. Progress, when measured only in speed and output, forgets to ask what it takes away in silence.

There is also a quieter change happening inside the human mind. As tools become smarter, humans begin to feel more powerful. The thought slowly shifts from “I can use this” to “I control this.” With artificial intelligence, the language becomes even bolder. We start hearing phrases like “we can create worlds, faces, voices, even minds.” But history have always warned us about ‘overreach’. Not because power is evil, but because pride blinds judgment. When ability grows faster than wisdom, imbalance follows. We can already see early signs of this in concerns about shrinking attention spans, weakening cognitive habits, and a growing dependence on systems that think for us before we learn to think for ourselves deeply.

None of this is an argument to reject innovation. The idea is not to blacklist technology or romanticise the past. The real question is about direction and responsibility. Advancements are not only for the comfort of the present generation. They shape the mental, moral, and emotional world of future generations who will grow up surrounded by these systems as something normal and unavoidable. What values will guide that world? What habits will it encourage? What will it quietly take away?

This is where the richness of Indian thought becomes relevant, not as nostalgia, but as guidance. Ideas of dharma, restraint, balance, and ethical action were never anti-progress. They were reminders that power without responsibility becomes dangerous, and that ability without humility leads to decline. In modern terms, we talk about safety by design, ethical innovation, and human-centred technology. In older language, we talked about duty, limits, and the consequences of unchecked desire. The words have changed, but the concern is the same.

Perhaps the real question is not whether we are becoming creators, but whether we remember that we are also caretakers. We do not bring existence out of nothing. We reshape what already exists. And in that reshaping, the line between wisdom and arrogance, between progress and pride, becomes the most important line of all. 

‍

The futuristic impact of AI, robotics, and technologies

‍

In every yuga, humans have extended the limits of what they can do. What changes is not the desire, but the form it takes. Our ancient history speak of extraordinary abilities, not as fantasies, but as reminders of how power tests character. Figures like Naradmuni (a prominent divine sage (Rishiraja) in Hinduism) are described as moving from one place to another in moments. Others gained immense strength, knowledge, or influence through years of discipline and tapasya. Ravana (Figure from Ramayana) himself was learned and powerful, far beyond ordinary human measure. Sanjaya (the charioteer and advisor of King Dhritarashtra in the Mahabharata) receives the gift of divya drishti and narrates the events of the battlefield without being physically present there, seeing and speaking across distance in a way that still feels remarkable even today.

In this yuga, that ancient search for power and reach has not disappeared, it has only changed its language, and today it speaks through robotics, artificial intelligence, and advanced technologies, making us ask whether we are truly creators or only very advanced arrangers of what already exists.

In this age, science and technology are attempting something similar in a different language. We may not travel like Naradmuni, but we send our voices, images, and thoughts across the world in seconds. We build machines that can see, listen, respond, and even imitate human thinking. Artificial intelligence and robotics promise comfort, speed, and efficiency, and in many ways, they truly improve human life. Yet the old question remains. Not just what can we do, but how far should we go, and at what cost.

When we primarily build for human convenience, we often fail to thoroughly examine the long-term consequences. The environmental impact of large-scale technology is already visible in the pressure on resources, the growth of waste, and the slow damage to air, water, and soil. Nature does not recover at the pace of human ambition. What feels like small compromises today can become heavy burdens for tomorrow.

There is also the impact on the human mind. As systems become more capable, humans risk becoming more dependent. When answers arrive instantly, patience weakens. When machines start deciding for us, the habit of deep thinking slowly fades. Over time, this can affect attention, memory, and judgment. Knowledge becomes easier to reach, but wisdom becomes harder to build. Just as in old stories, the danger is not in having power, but in losing clarity while using it.

Future generations will not encounter these technologies as new inventions. They will be born into them. What we treat today as tools, they will experience as the normal environment of life. This makes responsibility unavoidable. The real question is not only whether these systems work, but what kind of humans they will shape.

The purpose of this reflection is not to reject progress. It is to ask for balance. Building for human comfort is important, but building without studying long-term impact is risky. If this age has the power to create intelligent systems, it must also have the wisdom to protect the environment, care for future generations, and preserve the depth of the human mind. Otherwise, advancement becomes speed without direction, and power without responsibility.

‍

The Acceleration of the Technological Age

‍

The current era has reached a state where technological progress now occurs through instantaneous changes which transform our methods of working and decision-making and future planning. People often view robotics and automation and artificial intelligence as signs of progress yet a less audible inquiry persists through time which asks whether every technological advancement enhances human existence or whether we merely pursue efficient and easy solutions without thinking about their implications. Indian philosophical thought offers a useful lens here, one that does not reject progress but asks whether it aligns with balance, responsibility, and long-term harmony. The definition of intelligence according to this perspective extends beyond computational skills and pattern imitation because it requires people to achieve awareness and intent and their complete understanding. Current machines possess the ability to mimic human reasoning and produce language while they can replicate decision-making processes, but they lack both consciousness and personal experience. 

‍

Power, Responsibility, and Ethical Imbalance

‍

The development of new technological capabilities brings with it ethical responsibilities which every society must handle. Human beings must take on new ethical duties which match their increasing capabilities according to historical evidence. The current situation shows that people create new things at a speed which exceeds their ability to think about those innovations. Systems exist to enhance operational performance while they determine human actions and extend their power but they do not always evaluate their complete impact. Indian traditions emphasize dharma, the principle of balance and rightful action, which shows that power without ethical grounding creates destructive human force. The state of imbalance exists without showing its presence at all times. The process of imbalance development takes place through three channels: environmental degradation, social inequalities, and the gradual decline of human control.

The current society demonstrates this transformation through its existing results. The algorithms now determine our consumption choices and our methods of understanding everything around us. The system provides users with personalized comfort, but it also creates hidden patterns that determine their preferences. The process starts with decision assistance before it progresses to decision influence which eventually leads to decision conditioning. The concept of swatantrata as inner freedom becomes more complicated within such an environment. People stop making freedom choices when they find it easier to select between things that exist in their surroundings because they lose their ability to choose. People start to measure their work activities and personal identity through systems that use optimization techniques and digital validation systems, which leads to a decrease of space that exists for individuals to think and consider matters independently.

‍

Technology, Ecology, and Civilizational Values

‍

The environmental impact of technological demand exists together with social transformations. All systems need power while all infrastructure creates environmental effects and all products, we use contain unknown expenses which become apparent after many years. India's civilizational values maintain their dedication to nature because people see rivers and forests and ecosystems as essential parts of existence. Success in modern society measures output as the main achievement while actual value disappears through the evaluation process. The future requires us to create new things but we must also decide which things to keep intact.

The current situation requires progress to be defined differently because it needs to be measured through precise management instead of continuous rapid development. The question now extends beyond technological advancement to include the need for technologies to be operated through intelligent guidance. The increasing abilities of machines create a greater need for people to maintain their essential human characteristics. Human beings must actively maintain their capacity to make ethical decisions and understand their life's meaning and purpose. The future depends on two factors: the “innovations that will emerge and the values that will guide their development.”

‍

Conclusion

‍

It is high time we pause and honestly examine the path we are taking. The question is not whether technology should grow, but whether its overreach should be allowed to shape the future without restraint. We are building faster than ever, developing systems that touch every part of life. That makes it even more important to study their long-term impact, not only on markets or productivity, but on nature, on the human mind, and on the generations who will inherit this tech-driven world.

Progress should benefit those who come after us, not quietly weaken them. A future where people are born into pure convenience, surrounded by tools that think, decide, and act for them, may look comfortable, but comfort alone does not build strong, aware, or responsible human beings. Growth without effort and ease without discipline slowly takes away depth, resilience, and clarity. Technology should support human potential, not replace it.

This is why morality, ethics, and balance cannot be treated as optional ideas. They must guide innovation, not follow it. We do not need to overcreate. We need to create ‘wisely’. We need to build systems that remain under human control, not systems that slowly train humans to surrender their judgment, attention, and responsibility. Tools should remain tools. They should serve life, not define it.

Indian thought has always placed intention at the centre of action. Karma is not judged only by outcome, but by the spirit in which an act is performed. A tool in itself is neither pure nor impure. It becomes one or the other through the hand that uses it. This is a lens through which modern technology can also be examined. Artificial intelligence can help doctors read scans faster, help farmers predict weather patterns, and help students in remote areas access knowledge. At the same time, it can be used to watch, to sort, to exclude, and to reduce human beings to data points that fit neatly into a system. The difference lies not in the machine, but in the values of those who design and deploy it.

The purpose of this reflection is simple. We should build, but we should build with responsibility. We should innovate, but with awareness of consequences. True progress is not just about what is possible today. It is about what remains healthy, meaningful, and sustainable tomorrow. If this age can combine intelligence with humility, and power with restraint, then technology will not become a symbol of overreach. It will become a sign of maturity.

‍