#FactCheck: False Social Media Claim on six Army Personnel were killed in retaliatory attack by ULFA in Myanmar

Introduction

‍

“an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not ‍, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in relation to contempt of court; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force”

‍

Law grows by confronting its absences, it heals itself through its own gaps. The most recent notification from MeitY, G.S.R. 775(E) dated October 22, 2025, is an illustration of that self-correction. On November 15, 2025, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025, will come into effect. They accomplish two crucial things: they restrict who can use "actual knowledge” to initiate takedown and require senior-level scrutiny of those directives. By doing this, they maintain genuine security requirements while guiding India’s content governance system towards more transparent due process. 

‍

When Regulation Learns Restraint

‍

To better understand the jurisprudence of revision, one must need to understand that Regulation, in its truest form, must know when to pause. The 2025 amendment marks that rare moment when the government chooses precision over power, when regulation learns restraint. The amendment revises Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules. Social media sites, hosting companies, and other digital intermediaries are still required to take action within 36 hours of receiving “actual knowledge” that a piece of content is illegal (e.g. poses a threat to public order, sovereignty, decency, or morality). However, “actual knowledge” now only occurs in the following situations: 

(i) a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction, or

(ii) a reasoned written intimation from a duly authorised government officer not below Joint Secretary rank (or equivalent)

‍

The authorised authority in matters involving the police “must not be below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG)”. This creates a well defined, senior-accountable channel in place of a diffuse trigger. 

There are two more new structural guardrails. The Rules first establish a monthly assessment of all takedown notifications by a Secretary-level officer of the relevant government to test necessity, proportionality, and compliance with India’s safe harbour provision under Section 79(3) of the IT Act. Second, in order for platforms to act precisely rather than in an expansive manner, takedown requests must be accompanied by legal justification, a description of the illegal act, and precise URLs or identifiers. The cumulative result of these guardrails is that each removal has a proportionality check and a paper trail. 

‍

Due Process as the Law’s Conscience 

‍

Indian jurisprudence has been debating what constitutes “actual knowledge” for over a decade. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (2015) connected an intermediary’s removal obligation to notifications from official channels or court orders rather than vague notice. But over time, that line became hazy due to enforcement practices and some court rulings, raising concerns about over-removal and safe-harbour loss under Section 79(3). Even while more recent decisions questioned the “reasonable efforts” of intermediaries, the 2025 amendment institutionally pays homage to Shreya Singhal’s ethos by refocusing “actual knowledge” on formal reviewable communications from senior state actors or judges. 

The amendment also introduces an internal constitutionalism to executive orders by mandating monthly audits at the Secretary level. The state is required to re-justify its own orders on a rolling basis, evaluating them against proportionality and necessity, which are criteria that Indian courts are increasingly requesting for speech restrictions. Clearer triggers, better logs, and less vague “please remove” communications that previously left compliance teams in legal limbo are the results for intermediaries.

‍

The Court’s Echo in the Amendment

‍

The essence of this amendment is echoed in Karnataka High Court’s Ruling on Sahyog Portal, a government portal used to coordinate takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b), was constitutional. The HC rejected X’s (formerly Twitter’s) appeal contesting the legitimacy of the portal in September. The business had claimed that by giving nodal officers the authority to issue takedown orders without court review, the portal permitted arbitrary content removals. The court disagreed, holding that the officers’ acts were in accordance with Section 79 (3)(b) and that they were “not dropping from the air but emanating from statutes.” The amendment turns compliance into conscience by conforming to the Sahyog Portal verdict, reiterating that due process is the moral grammar of governance rather than just a formality. 

‍

Conclusion: The Necessary Restlessness of Law 

‍

Law cannot afford stillness; it survives through self doubt and reinvention. The 2025 amendment, too, is not a destination, it’s a pause before the next question, a reminder that justice breathes through revision. As befits a constitutional democracy, India’s path to content governance has been combative and iterative. The next rule making cycle has been sharpened by the stays split judgments, and strikes down that have resulted from strategic litigation centred on the IT Rules, safe harbour, government fact-checking, and blocking orders. Lessons learnt are reflected in the 2025 amendment: review triumphs over opacity; specificity triumphs over vagueness; and due process triumphs over discretion. A digital republic balances freedom and force in this way. 

‍

Sources

• https://pressnews.in/law-and-justice/government-notifies-amendments-to-it-rules-2025-strengthening-intermediary-obligations/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/90dedea70a3fdfe6d58efb55b95b4109.pdf 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2181719 
• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/x-relies-on-shreya-singhal-in-arbitrary-content-blocking-case-in-karnataka-hc/ 
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/10/223-content-takedown-rules-online-platforms-36-hr-deadline-officer-rank/#:~:text=It%20specifies%20that%20government%20officers,Deputy%20Inspector%20General%20of%20Police%E2%80%9D.

‍

‍

Introduction

Iran stands as a nation poised at the threshold of a transformative era. The Islamic Republic, a land of ancient civilisations now grappling with the exigencies of the 21st century, is now making strides in the emerging field of artificial intelligence (AI). This is not merely an adoption of new tools; it is a strategic embrace, a calculated leap into the digital unknown, where the potential for economic growth and security enhancement resonates with the promise of a redefined future.

Embarking on this technological odyssey, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, in a conclave with the nation’s virtual business activists, delineated the ‘big steps’ being undertaken in the realm of AI. The gathering, as reported by the pro-government Tasnim News, was not a simple exchange of polite remarks but a profound discourse that offered an incisive overview of the burgeoning digital economy and the strides Iran is making in the AI landscape. The conversation deeply revolved around the current ecosystem of technology and innovation within Iran, delving into the burgeoning startup culture and the commendable drive within its youth populace to propel the nation to the forefront of technology.

Iranian AI Integration

Military Implications

The discourse ranged from the current technological infrastructure to the broader implications for the security and defense of the region. The Iranian polity, with its rich history that seamlessly blends with aspirations for the future, is acutely aware that the implications of AI reach far beyond mere economic growth. They extend into the very fibres of military might and the structure of national security. The investment in cyber capabilities in Iran is well-documented, a display of shrewdness and pragmatism. And the integration of AI technologies is the next logical step in an ever-evolving defense architecture. Brigadier General Alireza Sabahifard, Commander of the Iranian Army Air Defense Force, has underscored the pivotal role of AI in modern warfare. He identifies the ongoing adoption of AI technologies as a strategic imperative, a top priority fundamentally designed to elevate the air defense capabilities in Iran to meet 21st-century threats.

Economic Implications

Yet, the Iranian pursuit of AI is not solely confined to bolstering military prowess. It is also pervasive in nurturing economic opportunity. President Raisi’s rhetoric touches upon economic rejuvenation, job creation, and the proliferation of financial and legal support mechanisms, all blurred into a cohesive vision that would foster a suitable environment for the private sector in the AI domain. The ambition is grand and strikingly clear — a nation committed to training several thousand individuals in the digital economy sector, signaling a deep-rooted commitment to cultivating a healthy environment  for AI-driven innovation.

The Iranian leader’s vision extends beyond the simple creation of infrastructure. It extends to the fostering of a healthy, competitive, and peaceful social milieu where domestic and international markets are within easy reach, promoting the prosperity of the digital economy and its activists. Such a vision of technological symbiosis, in many Western democracies, would be labelled as audaciously progressive. In Iran, however, withdrawing a major chunk of economic investments from the country's security state adds layers of complexity and nuance to this transformative narrative.

Cultural Integration

Still, Iran’s ambitious AI journey unfolds with a recognition of its cultural underpinnings and societal structure. The Nexus between the private sector, with its cyber-technocratic visionaries, and the regime, with its omnipresent ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is a tightrope that requires unparalleled poise and vigilance.

Moreover, in the holy city of Qom, a hub of intellectual fervour and the domicile of half of Iran's 200,000 Shia clerics, there burgeons a captivating interest in the possible synergies between AI and theological study. The clerical establishment, hidden within a stronghold of religious scholarship, perceives AI not as a problem but as a potential solution, a harbinger of progress that could ally with tradition. It sees in AI the potential of parsing Islamic texts with newfound precision, thereby allowing religious rulings, or fatwas, to resonate with the everchanging   Iranian society. This integration of technology is a testament to the dynamic interplay between tradition and modernity.

Yet the integration of AI into the venerable traditions of societies such as Iran's is threaded with challenges. Herein lays the paradox, for as AI is poised to potentially bolster religious study, the threat of cultural dissolution remains present. AI, if not judiciously designed with local values and ethics in mind, could inadvertently propagate an ideology at odds with local customs, beliefs, and the cornerstone principles of a society.

Natural Resources

Similarly, Iran's strategic foray into AI extends into its sovereign dominion—the charge of its natural resources. As Mehr News Agency reports, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) is on the cusp of pioneering a joint venture with international tech juggernauts, chiefly Chinese companies, to inject the lifeblood of AI into the heart of its oil and gas production processes. This grand undertaking is nothing short of a digital renaissance aimed at achieving 'great reforms’ and driving a drastic 20% improvement in efficiency. AI’s algorithmic potency, unleashed in the hydrocarbon fields, promises to streamline expenses, enhance efficacy, and maximise production outputs, thereby bolstering Iran's economic bulwark.

The AI way Forward

As we delve further into Iran's sophisticated AI strategy, we observe an approach that is both vibrant and multi-dimensional. From military development to religious tutelage, from the diligent charge of the environment to the pursuit of sustainable economic development, Iran's AI ventures are emblematic of the broader global discourse. They mark a vivid intersection of AI governance, security, and the future of technological enterprise, highlighting the evolution of technological adoption and its societal, ethical, and geopolitical repercussions.

Conclusion

The multifaceted nature of Iran's AI pursuits encapsulates a spectrum of strategic imperatives, bringing the spearheads of defense modernisation and religious academics with the imperatives of resource allocation. It reflects a nuanced approach to the adoption and integration of technology, adjudicating between the venerable pillars of traditional values and the inexorable forces of modernisation. As Iran continues to delineate and traverse its path through the burgeoning landscape of AI, attending global stakeholders, watch with renewed interest and measured apprehension. Mindful of the intricate geopolitical implications and the transformative potential inherent in Iran's burgeoning AI endeavours, the global community watches, waits, and wonders at what may emerge from this ancient civilisation’s bold, resolute strides into the future.

References

- https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/03/17/irans-president-wants-new-focus-on-artificial-intelligence/

- https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-792391

- https://www.ft.com/content/9c1c3fd3-4aea-40ab-977b-24fe5527300c

- https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-looks-ai-weather-western-sanctions-help-military-fight-cheap

‍

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/ 

‍