#FactCheck-Viral Claim That Modi’s Jhalmuri Vendor Was an SPG Commando Is False

Introduction

In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.

Brief Analysis of Prebunking 

Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation. 

The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it. 

The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.

There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution. 

Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions. 

Brief Analysis of Debunking 

Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem. 

Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.

Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts.  Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation.  Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.

Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis

Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions. 

1. Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions. 
2. Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
3. User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
4. Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.

Conclusion

The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential.  Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape. 

References

1. https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
2. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
3. https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
4. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/

‍

Introduction

Quantum mechanics is not a new field. It finds its roots in the works of physicists such as Niels Bohr in the 1920s, and has informed the development of technologies like nuclear power in the past. But with developments in science and engineering, we are at the cusp of harnessing quantum mechanics for a new wave of real-world uses in sensing and metrology, computing, networking, security, and more. While at different stages of development, quantum technologies have the potential to revolutionise global security, economic systems, and digital infrastructure. The science is dazzling, but it is equally urgent to start preparing for its broader impact on society, especially regarding privacy and digital security. This article explores quantum computing, its threat to information integrity, and global interdependencies as they exist today, and discusses policy areas that should be addressed.

What Is Quantum Computing?

Classical computers use binary bits (0 or 1) to represent and process information. This binary system forms the base of modern computing. But quantum computers use qubits (quantum bits) as a basic unit, which can exist in multiple states ( 0, 1, both, or with other qubits) simultaneously due to quantum principles like superposition and entanglement. This creates an infinite range of possibilities in information processing and allows quantum machines to perform complex computations at speeds impossible for traditional computers. While still in their early stages, large-scale quantum computers could eventually:

1. Break modern encryption systems
2. Model complex molecules for drug discovery
3. Optimise global logistics and financial systems
4. Accelerate AI and machine learning

While this could eventually present significant opportunities in fields such as health innovation, material sciences, climate modelling, and cybersecurity, challenges will continue to arise even before the technology is ready for commercial application. Policymakers must start anticipating their impact.

Threats

Policy solutions surrounding quantum technologies will depend on the pace of development of the elements of the quantum ecosystem. However, the most urgent concerns regarding quantum computing applications are the risk to encryption and the impact on market competition.

1. Cybersecurity Threat: Digital infrastructure today (e.g., cloud services, networks, servers, etc.) across sectors such as government, banking and finance, healthcare, energy, etc., depends on encryption for secure data handling and communications. Threat actors can utilise quantum computers to break this encryption. Widely used asymmetric encryption keys, such as RSA or ECC, are particularly susceptible to being broken. Threat actors could "harvest now, decrypt later”- steal encrypted data now and decrypt it later when quantum capabilities mature. Although AES-256, a symmetric encryption standard, is currently considered resistant to quantum decryption, it only protects data after a secure connection is established through a process that today relies on RSA or ECC. This is why governments and companies are racing to adopt Post- Quantum Cryptography (PQC) and quantum key distribution (QKD) to protect security and privacy in digital infrastructure.

2. Market Monopoly: Quantum computing demands significant investments in infrastructure, talent, and research, which only a handful of countries and companies currently possess. As a result, firms that develop early quantum advantage may gain unprecedented competitive leverage through offerings such as quantum-as-a-service, disrupting encryption-dependent industries, or accelerating innovation in pharmaceuticals, finance, and logistics. This could reinforce the existing power asymmetries in the global digital economy. Given these challenges, proactive and forward-looking policy frameworks are critical.

What Should Quantum Computing Policy Cover?

Commercial quantum computing will transform many industries. Policy will have to be flexible and be developed in iterations to account for fast-paced developments in the field. It will also require enduring international collaboration to effectively address a broad range of concerns, including ethics, security, privacy, competition, and workforce implications.

1. Cybersecurity and Encryption: Quantum policy should prioritise the development and standardisation of quantum-resistant encryption methods. This includes ongoing research into Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) algorithms and their integration into digital infrastructure. Global policy will need to align national efforts with international standards to create unified quantum-safe encryption protocols.

2. Market Competition and Access: Given the high barriers to entry, regulatory frameworks should promote fair competition, enabling smaller players like startups and developing economies to participate meaningfully in the quantum economy. Frameworks to ensure equitable access, interoperability, and fair competition will become imperative as the quantum ecosystem matures so that society can reap its benefits as a whole.

4. Ethical Considerations: Policymakers will have to consider the impact on privacy and security, and push for the responsible use of quantum capabilities. This includes ensuring that quantum advances do not contribute to cybercrime, disproportionate surveillance, or human rights violations.

5. International Standard-Setting: Setting benchmarks, shared terminologies, and measurement standards will ensure interoperability and security across diverse stakeholders and facilitate global collaboration in quantum research and infrastructure.

6. Military and Defence Implications: Militarisation of quantum technologies is a growing concern, and national security affairs related to quantum espionage are being urgently explored. Nations will have to develop regulations to protect sensitive data and intellectual property from quantum-enabled attacks.

7. Workforce Development and Education: Policies should encourage quantum computing education at various levels to ensure a steady pipeline of talent and foster cross-disciplinary programs that blend quantum computing with fields like machine learning, AI, and engineering.

8. Environmental and Societal Impact: Quantum computing hardware requires specialised conditions such as extreme cooling. Policy will have to address the environmental footprint of the infrastructure and energy consumption of large-scale quantum systems. Broader societal impacts of quantum computing, including potential job displacement, accessibility issues, and the equitable distribution of quantum computing benefits, will have to be explored.

Conclusion

Like nuclear power and AI, the new wave of quantum technologies is expected to be an exciting paradigm shift for society. While they can bring numerous benefits to commercial operations and address societal challenges, they also pose significant risks to global information security. Quantum policy will require regulatory, strategic, and ethical frameworks to govern the rise of these technologies, especially as they intersect with national security, global competition, and privacy. Policymakers must act in collaboration to mitigate unethical use of these technologies and the entrenchment of digital divides across countries. The OECD’s Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies provides a framework of essential values like respect for human rights, privacy, and sustainable development, which can be used to set a baseline, so that quantum computing and related technologies benefit society as a whole.

References

• https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/07/explainer-what-is-quantum-technology/
• https://www.paconsulting.com/insights/what-is-quantum-technology
• https://delinea.com/blog/quantum-safe-encryption#:~:text=This%20can%20result%20in%20AES,%2D128%20to%20AES%2D256.
• https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/a-quantum-technologies-policy-primer_fd1153c3-en.html

‍

Executive Summary:

A viral image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man; however, this claim is false. A thorough investigation by the Cyberpeace Research team found that the image has been digitally manipulated. The original photo, which was posted by Balmukund Acharya, a BJP MLA from Jaipur, on his official Facebook account in December 2023, he was posing with a Muslim man in his election office. The man wearing the Muslim skullcap is featured in several other photos on Acharya's Instagram account, where he expressed gratitude for the support from the Muslim community. Thus, the claimed image of a marriage between a Hindu Sadhvi and a Muslim man is digitally altered.

Claims:

An image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man. 

‍

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the posts, we reverse searched the image to find any credible sources. We found a photo posted by Balmukund Acharya Hathoj Dham on his facebook page on 6 December 2023. 

This photo is digitally altered and posted on social media to mislead. We also found several different photos with the skullcap man where he was featured.

‍

We also checked for any AI fabrication in the viral image. We checked using a detection tool named, “content@scale” AI Image detection.  This tool found the image to be 95% AI Manipulated.

‍

We also checked with another detection tool for further validation named, “isitai” image detection tool. It found the image to be 38.50% of AI content, which concludes to the fact that the image is manipulated and doesn’t support the claim made. Hence, the viral image is fake and misleading.

Conclusion:

The lack of credible source and the detection of AI manipulation in the image explains that the viral image claiming to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man is false. It has been digitally altered. The original image features BJP MLA Balmukund Acharya posing with a Muslim man, and there is no evidence of the claimed marriage.

• Claim: An image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man. 
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading