#FactCheck- Viral ‘Army Jump Accident’ Video Is AI-Generated

Introduction 

The geographical world has physical boundaries, but the digital one has a different architecture and institutions are underprepared when it comes to addressing cybersecurity breaches. Cybercrime, which may lead to economic losses, privacy violations, national security threats and have psycho-social consequences,  is forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2029, reaching an estimated cost of at least 6.4 trillion U.S. dollars (Statista). As cyber threats become persistent and ubiquitous, they are becoming a critical governance challenge. Lawmakers around the world need to collaborate on addressing this emerging issue.

Cybersecurity Governance and its Structural Elements

Cybersecurity governance refers to the strategies, policies, laws, and institutional frameworks that guide national and international preparedness and responses to cyber threats to governments, private entities, and individuals. Effective cybersecurity governance ensures that digital risks are managed proactively while balancing security with fundamental rights like privacy and internet freedom. It includes, but is not limited to :

1. Policies and Legal Frameworks: Laws that define the scope of cybercrime, cybersecurity responsibilities, and mechanisms for data protection. Eg: India’s National Cybersecurity Policy (NCSP) of 2013, Information Technology Act, 2000, and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, EU’s Cybersecurity Act (2019), Cyber Resilience Act (2024), Cyber Solidarity Act (2025), and NIS2 Directive (2022), South Africa’s Cyber Crimes Act (2021), etc.
2. Regulatory Bodies: Government agencies such as data protection authorities, cybersecurity task forces, and other sector-specific bodies. Eg: India’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Europe’s  European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), and others.
3. Public-Private Knowledge Sharing: The sharing of the private sector’s expertise and the government’s resources plays a crucial role in improving enforcement and securing critical infrastructure. This model of collaboration is followed in the EU, Japan, Turkey, and the USA. 
4. Research and Development: Apart from the technical, the cyber domain also includes military, politics, economy, law, culture, society, and other elements. Robust, multi-sectoral research is necessary for formulating international and regional frameworks on cybersecurity. 

Challenges to Cybersecurity Governance 

Governments face several challenges in securing cyberspace and protecting critical assets and individuals despite the growing focus on cybersecurity. This is because so far the focus has been on cybersecurity management, which, considering the scale of attacks in the recent past, is not enough. Stakeholders must start deliberating on the aspect of governance in cyberspace while ensuring that this process is multi-consultative. (Savaş & Karataş 2022). Prominent challenges which need to be addressed are: 

• Dynamic Threat Landscape: The threat landscape in cyberspace is ever-evolving.  Bad actors are constantly coming up with new ways to carry out attacks, using elements of surprise, adaptability, and asymmetry aided by AI and quantum computing. While cybersecurity measures help mitigate risks and minimize damage, they can’t always provide definitive solutions. E.g., the pace of malware development is much faster than that of legal norms, legislation, and security strategies for the protection of information technology (IT). (Efe and Bensghir 2019).
• Regulatory Fragmentation and Compliance Challenges: Different countries, industries, or jurisdictions may enforce varying or conflicting cybersecurity laws and standards, which are still evolving and require rapid upgrades. This makes it harder for businesses to comply with regulations, increases compliance costs, and jeopardizes the security posture of the organization. 
• Trans-National Enforcement Challenges: Cybercriminals operate across jurisdictions, making threat intelligence collection, incident response, evidence-gathering, and prosecution difficult.  Without cross-border agreements between law enforcement agencies and standardized compliance frameworks for organizations, bad actors have an advantage in getting away with attacks. 
• Balancing Security with Digital Rights: Striking a balance between cybersecurity laws and privacy concerns (e.g., surveillance laws vs. data protection) remains a profound challenge,  especially in areas of CSAM prevention and identifying terrorist activities. Without a system of checks and balances, it is difficult to prevent government overreach into domains like journalism, which are necessary for a healthy democracy, and Big Tech’s invasion of user privacy. 

The Road Ahead: Strengthening Cybersecurity Governance 

All domains of human life- economy, culture, politics, and society- occur in digital and cyber environments now. It follows naturally, that governance in the physical world translates into governance in cyberspace. It must be underpinned by features consistent with the principles of openness, transparency, participation, and accountability, while also protecting human rights. In cyberspace, the world is stateless and threats are rapidly evolving with innovations in modern computing. Thus, cybersecurity governance requires a global, multi-sectoral approach utilizing the rules of international law, to chart out problems, and solutions, and carry out detailed risk analyses. (Savaş & Karataş 2022). 

References

• https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1280009/cost-cybercrime-worldwide#statisticContainer
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1365/s43439-021-00045-4#citeas 
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cybersecurity-policies#ecl-inpage-cybersecurity-strategy 

‍

Social media has become far more than a tool of communication, engagement and entertainment. It shapes politics, community identity, and even shapes agendas. When misused, the consequences can be grave: communal disharmony, riots, false rumours, harassment or worse. Emphasising the need for digital Atmanirbhar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently urged India’s youth to develop the country’s own social media platforms, like Facebook, Instagram and X, to ensure that the nation’s technological ecosystems remain secure and independent, reinforcing digital autonomy. This growing influence of platforms has sharpened the tussle between government regulation, the independence of social media companies, and the protection of freedom of expression in most countries. 

‍

Why Government Regulation Is Especially Needed

‍

While self-regulation has its advantages, ‘real-world harms’ show why state oversight cannot be optional:

‍

• Incitement to violence and communal unrest: Misinformation and hate speech can inflame tensions. In Manipur (May 2023), false posts,  including unverified sexual-violence claims, spread online, worsening clashes. Authorities shut down mobile internet on 3 May 2023 to curb “disinformation and false rumours,” showing how quickly harmful content can escalate and why enforceable moderation rules matter.
• Fake news and misinformation: False content about health, elections or individuals spreads far faster than corrections. During COVID-19, an “infodemic” of fake cures, conspiracy theories and religious discrimination went viral on WhatsApp and Facebook, starting with false claims that the virus came from eating bats. The WHO warned of serious knock-on effects, and a Reuters Institute study found that although such claims by public figures were fewer, they gained the highest engagement, showing why self-regulation alone often fails to stop it.

‍

Nepal’s Example:

‍
Nepal provides a clear example of the tension between government regulation and the self-regulation tussle of social media. In 2023, the government issued rules requiring all social media platforms, whether local or foreign, to register with the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, appoint a local contact person, and comply with Nepali law. By 2025, major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube had not met the registration deadline. In response, the Nepal Telecommunications Authority began blocking unregistered platforms until they complied. While journalists, civil-rights groups and Gen Z criticised the move as potentially limiting free speech and exposing corruption against the government. The government argued it was necessary to stop harmful content and misinformation. The case shows that without enforceable obligations, self-regulation can leave platforms unaccountable, but it must also balance with protecting free speech.   

‍

Self-Regulation: Strengths and Challenges

‍

Most social-media companies prefer to self-regulate. They write community rules, trust & safety guidelines, and give users ways to flag harmful posts, and lean on a mix of staff, outside boards and AI filters to handle content that crosses the line. The big advantage here is speed: when something dangerous appears, a platform can react within minutes, far quicker than a court or lawmaker. Because they know their systems inside out, from user habits to algorithmic quirks, they can adapt fast.

But there’s a downside. These platforms thrive on engagement, hence sensational or hateful posts often keep people scrolling longer. That means the very content that makes money can also be the content that most needs moderating , a built-in conflict of interest.

‍

Government Regulation: Strengths and Risks

‍

Public rules make platforms answerable. Laws can require illegal content to be removed, force transparency and protect user rights. They can also stop serious harms such as fake news that might spark violence, and they often feel more legitimate when made through open, democratic processes.

Yet regulation can lag behind technology. Vague or heavy-handed rules may be misused to silence critics or curb free speech. Global enforcement is messy, and compliance can be costly for smaller firms.

‍

Practical Implications & Hybrid Governance

‍

For users, regulation brings clearer rights and safer spaces, but it must be carefully drafted to protect legitimate speech. For platforms, self-regulation gives flexibility but less certainty; government rules provide a level playing field but add compliance costs. For governments, regulation helps protect public safety, reduce communal disharmony, and fight misinformation, but it requires transparency and safeguards to avoid misuse.

Hybrid Approach

‍A combined model of self-regulation plus government regulation is likely to be most effective. Laws should establish baseline obligations: registration, local grievance officers, timely removal of illegal content, and transparency reporting. Platforms should retain flexibility in how they implement these obligations and innovate with tools for user safety. Independent audits, civil society oversight, and simple user appeals can help keep both governments and platforms accountable.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Social media has great power. It can bring people together, but it can also spread false stories, deepen divides and even stir violence. Acting on their own, platforms can move fast and try new ideas, but that alone rarely stops harmful content. Good government rules can fill the gap by holding companies to account and protecting people’s rights.

The best way forward is to mix both approaches, clear laws, outside checks, open reporting, easy complaint systems and support for local platforms, so the digital space stays safer and more trustworthy.

‍

References 

1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/need-desi-social-media-platforms-to-secure-digital-sovereignty-pm/articleshow/123327780.cms# 
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-66255989
3. https://nepallawsunshine.com/social-media-registration-in-nepal/ https://www.newsonair.gov.in/nepal-bans-26-unregistered-social-media-sites-including-facebook-whatsapp-instagram/ 
4. https://hbr.org/2021/01/social-media-companies-should-self-regulate-now 
5. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/social-media-regulation-in-india 

‍

The 2020s mark the emergence of deepfakes in general media discourse. The rise in deepfake technology is defined by a very simple yet concerning fact: it is now possible to create perfect imitations of anyone using AI tools that can create audio in any person's voice and generate realistic images and videos of almost anyone doing pretty much anything. The proliferation of deepfake content in the media poses great challenges to the functioning of democracies. especially as such materials can deprive the public of the accurate information it needs to make informed decisions in elections. Deepfakes are created using AI, which combines different technologies to produce synthetic content.

Understanding Deepfakes 

Deepfakes are synthetically generated content created using artificial intelligence (AI). This technology works on an advanced algorithm that creates hyper-realistic videos by using a person’s face, voice or likeness utilising techniques such as machine learning. The utilisation and progression of deepfake technology holds vast potential, both benign and malicious. 

An example is when the NGO Malaria No More which had used deepfake technology in 2019 to sync David Beckham’s lip movements with different voices in nine languages, amplified its anti-malaria message.

Deepfakes have a dark side too. They have been used to spread false information, manipulate public opinion, and damage reputations. They can harm mental health and have significant social impacts. The ease of creating deepfakes makes it difficult to verify media authenticity, eroding trust in journalism and creating confusion about what is true and what is not. Their potential to cause harm has made it necessary to consider legal and regulatory approaches.

India’s Legal Landscape Surrounding Deepfakes

India presently lacks a specific law dealing with deepfakes, but the existing legal provisions offer some safeguards against mischief caused. 

• Deepfakes created with the intent of spreading misinformation or damaging someone’s reputation can be prosecuted under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023. It deals with the consequences of such acts under Section 356, governing defamation law.
• The Information Technology Act of 2000, the primary law that regulates Indian cyberspace. Any unauthorised disclosure of personal information which is used to create deepfakes for harassment or voyeurism is a violation of the act.
• The unauthorised use of a person's likeness in a deepfake can become a violation of their intellectual property rights and lead to copyright infringement.
• India’s privacy law, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, regulates and limits the misuse of personal data. It has the potential to address deepfakes by ensuring that individuals’ likenesses are not used without their consent in digital contexts.

India, at present, needs legislation that can specifically address the challenges deepfakes pose. The proposed legislation, aptly titled, ‘the Digital India Act’ aims to tackle various digital issues, including the misuse of deepfake technology and the spread of misinformation. Additionally, states like Maharashtra have proposed laws targeting deepfakes used for defamation or fraud, highlighting growing concerns about their impact on the digital landscape.

Policy Approaches to Regulation of Deepfakes

• Criminalising and penalising the making, creation and distribution of harmful deepfakes as illegal will act as a deterrent.
• There should be a process that mandates the disclosures for synthetic media. This would be to inform viewers that the content has been created using AI. 
• Encouraging tech companies to implement stricter policies on deepfake content moderation can enhance accountability and reduce harmful misinformation.
• The public’s understanding of deepfakes should be promoted. Especially, via awareness campaigns that will empower citizens to critically evaluate digital content and make informed decisions.

Deepfake, Global Overview

There has been an increase in the momentum to regulate deepfakes globally. In October 2023, US President Biden signed an executive order on AI risks instructing the US Commerce Department to form labelling standards for AI-generated content. California and Texas have passed laws against the dangerous distribution of deepfake images that affect electoral contexts and Virginia has targeted a law on the non-consensual distribution of deepfake pornography. 

China promulgated regulations requiring explicit marking of doctored content. The European Union has tightened its Code of Practice on Disinformation by requiring social media to flag deepfakes, otherwise they risk facing hefty fines and proposed transparency mandates under the EU AI Act. These measures highlight a global recognition of the risks that deepfakes pose and the need for a robust regulatory framework.

Conclusion 

With deepfakes being a significant source of risk to trust and democratic processes, a multi-pronged approach to regulation is in order. From enshrining measures against deepfake technology in specific laws and penalising the same, mandating transparency and enabling public awareness, the legislators have a challenge ahead of them. National and international efforts have highlighted the urgent need for a comprehensive framework to enable measures to curb the misuse and also promote responsible innovation. Cooperation during these trying times will be important to shield truth and integrity in the digital age. 

References

• https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2245&context=jss
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/regulating-deepfakes-generative-ai-in-india-explained/article67591640.ece
• https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena
• https://www.responsible.ai/a-look-at-global-deepfake-regulation-approaches/
• https://thesecretariat.in/article/wake-up-call-for-law-making-on-deepfakes-and-misinformation 

‍