#FactCheck: Fake Claim that US has used Indian Airspace to attack Iran

Introduction 

The pervasive issue of misinformation in India is a multifaceted challenge with profound implications for democratic processes, public awareness, and social harmony. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has taken measures to counter misinformation during the 2024 elections. ECI has launched campaigns to educate people and urge them to verify election-related content and share responsibly on social media. In response to the proliferation of fake news and misinformation online, the ECI has introduced initiatives such as ‘Myth vs. Reality’ and  'VerifyBeforeYouAmplify' to clear the air around fake news being spread on social media. EC measures aim to ensure that the spread of misinformation is curbed, especially during election time, when voters consume a lot of information from social media. It is of the utmost importance that voters take in facts and reliable information and avoid any manipulative or fake information that can negatively impact the election process. 

EC Collaboration with Tech Platforms

In this new age of technology, the Internet and social media continue to witness a surge in the spread of misinformation, disinformation, synthetic media content, and deepfake videos. This has rightly raised serious concerns. The responsible use of social media is instrumental in maintaining the accuracy of information and curbing misinformation incidents. 

The ECI has collaborated with Google to empower the citizenry by making it easy to find critical voting information on Google Search and YouTube. In this way, Google supports the 2024 Indian General Election by providing high-quality information to voters, safeguarding platforms from abuse, and helping people navigate AI-generated content. The company connects voters to helpful information through product features that show data from trusted organisations across its portfolio. YouTube showcases election information panels, including how to register to vote, how to vote, and candidate information. YouTube's recommendation system prominently features content from authority sources on the homepage, in search results, and in the "Up Next" panel. YouTube highlights high-quality content from authoritative news sources during key moments through its Top News and Breaking News shelves, as well as the news watch page. 

Google has also implemented strict policies and restrictions regarding who can run election-related advertising campaigns on its platforms. They require all advertisers who wish to run election ads to undergo an identity verification process, provide a pre-certificate issued by the ECI or anyone authorised by the ECI for each election ad they want to run where necessary, and have in-ad disclosures that clearly show who paid for the ad. Additionally, they have long-standing ad policies that prohibit ads from promoting demonstrably false claims that could undermine trust or participation in elections.

CyberPeace Countering Misinformation

CyberPeace Foundation, a leading organisation in the field of cybersecurity works to promote digital peace for all. CyberPeace is working on the wider ecosystem to counter misinformation and develop a safer and more responsible Internet. CyberPeace has collaborated with Google.org to run a pan-India awareness-building program and comprehensive multilingual digital resource hub with content available in up to 15 Indian languages to empower over 40 million netizens in building resilience against misinformation and practising responsible online behaviour. This step is crucial in creating a strong foundation for a trustworthy  Internet and secure digital landscape.  

Myth vs Reality Register by ECI

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has launched the 'Myth vs Reality Register' to combat misinformation and ensure the integrity of the electoral process during the general elections 2024. The 'Myth vs Reality Register' can be accessed through the Election Commission's official website (https://mythvsreality.eci.gov.in/). All stakeholders are urged to verify and corroborate any dubious information they receive through any channel with the information provided in the register. The register provides a one-stop platform for credible and authenticated election-related information, with the factual matrix regularly updated to include the latest busted fakes and fresh FAQs. The ECI has identified misinformation as one of the challenges, along with money, muscle, and Model Code of Conduct violations, for electoral integrity. The platform can be used to verify information, prevent the spread of misinformation, debunk myths, and stay informed about key issues during the General Elections 2024.

The ECI has taken proactive steps to combat the challenge of misinformation which could cripple the democratic process. EC has issued directives urging vigilance and responsibility from all stakeholders, including political parties, to verify information before amplifying it. The EC has also urged responsible behaviour on social media platforms and discourse that inspires unity rather than division. The commission has stated that originators of false information will face severe consequences, and nodal officers across states will remove unlawful content. Parties are encouraged to engage in issue-based campaigning and refrain from disseminating unverified or misleading advertisements.

Conclusion

The steps taken by the ECI have been designed to empower citizens and help them affirm the accuracy and authenticity of content before amplifying it. All citizens must be well-educated about the entire election process in India. This includes information on how the electoral rolls are made, how candidates are monitored, a complete database of candidates and candidate backgrounds, party manifestos, etc. For informed decision-making, active reading and seeking information from authentic sources is imperative. The partnership between government agencies, tech platforms and civil societies helps develop strategies to counter the widespread misinformation and promote online safety in general, and electoral integrity in particular. 

References 

• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2017375

• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2016941#:~:text=To%20combat%20the%20spread%20of,the%20ongoing%20General%20Elections%202024
• https://www.business-standard.com/elections/lok-sabha-election/ls-elections-2024-ec-uses-social-media-to-nudge-electors-to-vote-124040700429_1.html
• https://blog.google/intl/en-in/company-news/outreach-initiatives/supporting-the-2024-indian-general-election/
• https://blog.google/intl/en-in/partnering-indias-success-in-a-new-digital-paradigm/

‍

Key points: Data collection, Protecting Children, and Awareness

Introduction

The evolution of technology has drastically changed over the period impacting mankind and their lifestyle. For every single smallest aspect, humans are reliable on the computers they have manufactured. The use of AI has almost hindered mankind, kids these days are more lethargic to work and write more sensibly on their own, but they are more likely interested in television, video games, mobile games, etc. School kids use AI just to complete their homework. Is it a good sign for the country’s future? The study suggests that Tools like ChatGPT is a threat to humans/a child’s potential to be creative and make original content requiring a human writer’s insight. Tools like ChatGPT can remove students’ artistic voices rather than using their unique writing style.

Does any of those browsers or search engines use your search history against you? or How do non-users tend to lose their private info on such a search engine?

Are there any safety measures that one’s the government of a particular country taking to protect their people’s rights?

Some of us might wonder how these two fancy-looking world merge and into, Arey they a boon or curse?

So here’s the top news getting flooded all over the world through the internet,

“Italian Agency impose strict measures on OpenAI’s ChatGPT”

Italy becomes the first Western European country to take serious measures about using Open AI ChatGPT. An Italian Data Protection agency named Garante has set mandates on ChatGPT. Garante has raised concerns about privacy violations and the inability to verify the age of users. Garate has also claimed that the AI ChatBot is violating the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a press release, Garante demanded OpenAI take necessary actions.

To begin with, Garante has demanded that OpenAI’s ChatGPT should increase its transparency and give a comprehensive statement about its data processing practices. OpenAI must specify between obtaining user consent for processing users’ data to train its AI model or may rely on a legitimate basis. OpenAI must maintain the privacy of users’ data.

In addition, ChatGPT should also take measures to prevent minors from accessing the technology at such an early stage of life, which could hinder their brain power. ChatGPT should add some age verification system to prevent minors from accessing explicit content. Moreover, Garante suggests that OpenAI should spread awareness among its users about their data being processed to train its AI model. Garante has set a deadline of April 30 for ChatGPT to complete the given tasks. Until then, its service should be banned in the country.

Child safety while surfing on ChatGpt

Italian agency demands age limitation to surf and an age verification method to exclude users under the age of 13, and parental authority should be required for users between the ages of 13 and 18. As this is a matter of security. Children might get exposed to explicit content invalidated to their age or explore illegitimate content. The AI chatbot doesn’t have the sense to determine which content is appropriate for the underage audience. Due to tools like chatbots, subjective things/information are already available to young students, leading to endangered irrespective of their future. As ChatGpt can hinder their potential and ability to create original and creative content for young minds. It is a threat motivation to humans’ motivation to write. Moreover, when students need time to think and analyze they get lethargic due to tools like ChatGPT, and the practice they need fades away.

Collection of User’s Data

According to some reports from the company’s privacy policy, OpenAI ChatGpt collects an assortment of additional data. The first two questions are for a free trial when a session starts. It asks for your Login, and SignUp through your Gmail account collects your IP address, browser type, and the data you put in the form of input, i.e. it collects data on the user’s interaction with the website, It also collects the user’s data like session time, cookies through third party may tend to sell it to an unspecified third party.

This snapshot shows that they have added a few things after Garante’s draft.

Conclusion

AI chatbot – Chatgpt is an advanced technology tool that makes work a little easier, but one surfing on such tools must stay aware of the information they are asking for. Such AI bots are trained to understand mankind, its job is to give a helping hand and not doltish. In case of this, some people tend to provide sensitive information unknowingly, young minds get exposed to explicit information. Such bots need to put some age limitations. Such innovations keep taking place, but it’s individuals’ responsibility what actions to be allowed to access their online connected device. Unlike the Italian Agency, which has taken some preventive measures to keep their user’s data safe, also looking at the adverse effect of such chatbots on a young mind.

Introduction: Reasons Why These Amendments Have Been Suggested.

The suggested changes in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are the much-needed regulatory reaction to the blistering emergence of synthetic information and deepfakes. These reforms are due to the pressing necessity to govern risks within the digital ecosystem as opposed to regular reformation.

‍

The Emergence of the Digital Menace

‍

Generative AI tools have also facilitated the generation of very realistic images, videos, audio, and text in recent years. Such artificial media have been abused to portray people in situations they are not in or in statements they have never said. The market size is expected to have a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) from 2025 to 2031 of 37.57%, resulting in a market volume of US$400.00 bn by 2031. Therefore, tight regulatory controls are necessary to curb a high prevalence of harm in the Indian digital world.

‍

The Gap in Law and Institution

‍

None of the IT Rules, 2021, clearly addressed synthetic content. Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealt with identity theft, impersonation and violation of privacy, the intermediaries were not explicitly obligated on artificial media. This left a loophole in enforcement, particularly since AI-generated content might get around the old system of moderation. These amendments bring India closer to the international standards, including the EU AI Act, which requires transparency and labelling of AI-driven content. India addresses such requirements and adapts to local constitutional and digital ecosystem needs.

‍

II. Explanation of the Amendments

The amendments of 2025 present five alternative changes in the current IT Rules framework, which address various areas of synthetic media regulation. 

‍

A. Definitional Clarification: Synthetic Generation of Information Introduction.

‍

Rule 2(1)(wa) Amendment:

The amendments provide an all-inclusive definition of what is meant by “synthetically generated information” as information, which is created, or produced, changed or distorted with the use of a computer resource, in a way that such information can reasonably be perceived to be genuine. This definition is intentionally broad and is not limited to deepfakes in the strict sense but to any artificial media that has gone through algorithmic manipulation in order to have a semblance of authenticity.

Expansion of Legal Scope:

Rule 2(1A) also makes it clear that any mention of information in the context of unlawful acts, namely, including categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d), Rule 4(2), and Rule 4(4), should be understood to mean synthetically generated information. This is a pivotal interpretative protection that does not allow intermediaries to purport that synthetic versions of illegal material are not under the control of the regulation since they are algorithmic creations and not descriptions of what actually occurred.

‍

B. Safe Harbour Protection and Content Removal Requirements

‍

Amendment, rule 3(1)(b)- Safe Harbour Clarification:

The amendments add a certain proviso to the Rule (3) (1)(b) that explains a deletion or facilitation of access of synthetically produced information (or any information falling within specified categories) which the intermediaries have made in good faith as part of reasonable endeavours or at the receipt of a complaint shall not be considered a breach of the Section 79(2) (a) or (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This coverage is relevant especially since it insures the intermediaries against liability in situations where they censor the synthetic contents in advance of a court ruling or governmental warnings.

‍

C. Labelling and Metadata Requirements that are mandatory on Intermediaries that enable the creation of synthetic content

‍

The amendments establish a new framework of due diligence in Rule 3(3) on the case of intermediaries that offer tools to generate, modify, or alter the synthetically generated information. Two fundamental requirements are laid down. 

1. The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:

1. Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
2. It should cover at least 10% of the surface of the visual display or, in the case of audio content, during the initial 10% of its duration.
3. It can be used to immediately identify that such information is synthetically generated information which has been created, generated, modified, or altered using the computer resource of the intermediary. 

2. The intermediary in clause (a) shall not enable modification, suppression or removal of such label, permanent unique metadata or identifier, by whatever name called.

‍

D. Important Social Media Intermediaries- Pre-Publication Checking Responsibilities

‍

The amendments present a three-step verification mechanism, under Rule 4(1A), to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), which enables displaying, uploading or publishing on its computer resource before such display, uploading, or publication has to follow three steps. 

Step 1- User Declaration: It should compel the users to indicate whether the materials they are posting are synthetically created. This puts the first burden on users. 

Step 2-Technical Verification: To ensure that the user is truly valid, the SSMIs need to provide reasonable technical means, such as automated tools or other applications. This duty is contextual and would be based on the nature, format and source of content. It does not allow intermediaries to escape when it is known that not every type of content can be verified using the same standards.

Step 3- Prominent Labelling: In case the synthetic origin is verified by user declaration or technical verification, SSMIs should have a notice or label that is prominently displayed to be seen by users before publication.

The amendments provide a better system of accountability and set that intermediaries will be found to have failed due diligence in a case where it is established that they either knowingly permitted, encouraged or otherwise failed to act on synthetically produced information in contravention of these requirements. This brings in an aspect of knowledge, and intermediaries cannot use accidental errors as an excuse for non-compliance. 

An explanation clause makes it clear that SSMIs should also make reasonable and proportionate technical measures to check user declarations and keep no synthetic content published without adequate declaration or labelling. This eliminates confusion on the role of the intermediaries with respect to making declarations.

‍

III. Attributes of The Amendment Framework

‍

1. Precision in Balancing Innovation and Accountability.

The amendments have commendably balanced two extreme regulatory postures by neither prohibiting nor allowing the synthetic media to run out of control. It has recognised the legitimate use of synthetic media creation in entertainment, education, research and artistic expression by adopting a transparent and traceable mandate that preserves innovation while ensuring accountability. 

2. Overt Acceptance of the Intermediary Liability and Reverse Onus of Knowledge

Rule 4(1A) gives a highly significant deeming rule; in cases where the intermediary permits or refrains from acting with respect to the synthetic content knowing that the rules are violated, it will be considered as having failed to comply with the due diligence provisions. This description closes any loopholes in unscrupulous supervision where intermediaries can be able to argue that they did so. Standard of scienter promotes material investment in the detection devices and censor mechanisms that have been in place to offer security to the platforms that have sound systems, albeit the fact that the tools fail to capture violations at times.

3. Clarity Through Definition and Interpretive Guidance

The cautious definition of the term “synthetically generated information” and the guidance that is provided in Rule 2(1A) is an admirable attempt to solve confusion in the previous regulatory framework. Instead of having to go through conflicting case law or regulatory direction, the amendments give specific definitional limits. The purposefully broad formulation (artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered) makes sure that the framework is not avoided by semantic games over what is considered to be a real synthetic content versus a slight algorithmic alteration.

4. Insurance of non-accountability but encourages preventative moderation

The safe harbour clarification of the Rule 3(1)(b) amendment clearly safeguards the intermediaries who voluntarily dismiss the synthetic content without a court order or government notification. It is an important incentive scheme that prompts platforms to implement sound self-regulation measures. In the absence of such protection, platforms may also make rational decisions to stay in a passive stance of compliance, only deleting content under the pressure of an external authority, thus making them more effective in keeping users safe against dangerous synthetic media.

‍

IV. Conclusion

‍

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2025 suggest a structured, transparent, and accountable execution of curbing the rising predicaments of synthetic media and deepfakes. The amendments deal with the regulatory and interpretative gaps that have always existed in determining what should be considered as synthetically generated information, the intermediary liabilities and the mandatory labelling and metadata requirement. Safe-harbour protection will encourage the moderation proactively, and a scienter-based liability rule will not permit the intermediaries to escape liability when they are aware of the non-compliance but tolerate such non-compliance. The idea to introduce pre-publication verification of Significant Social Media Intermediaries adds the responsibility to users and due diligence to the platform. Overall, the amendments provide a reasonable balance between innovation and regulation, make the process more open with its proper definitions, promote responsible conduct on the platform and transform India and the new standards in the sphere of synthetic media regulation. They collaborate to enhance the verisimilitude, defence of the users, and visibility of the systems of the digital ecosystem of India.

‍

V. References 

‍

1. Amendments To The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021 It Rules 2021 | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide 

‍