Misinformation in Crisis: Challenges and Role of Social Media
Introduction
Social media has emerged as a leading source of communication and information; its relevance cannot be ignored during natural disasters since it is relied upon by governments and disaster relief organisations as a tool for disseminating aid and relief-related resources and communications instantly. During disaster times, social media has emerged as a primary source for affected populations to access information on relief resources; community forums offering aid resources and official government channels for government aid have enabled efficient and timely administration of relief initiatives.
However, given the nature of social media, misinformation risks during natural disasters has also emerged as a primary concern that severely hampers aid administration during natural disasters. The disaster-disinformation network offers some sensationalised influential campaigns against communities at their most vulnerable. Victims who seek reliable resources during natural calamities often reach out to inhospitable campaigns and may experience delayed or lack of access to necessary healthcare, significantly impacting their recovery and survival. This delay can lead to worsening medical conditions and an increased death toll among those affected by the disaster. Victims may lack clear information on the appropriate agencies to seek assistance from, causing confusion and delays in receiving help.
Misinformation Threat Landscape during Natural Disaster
During the 2018 floods in Kerala, it was noted that a fake video on water leakage from the Mullaperyar Dam created panic among the citizens and negatively impacted the rescue operations. Similarly, in 2017, reports emerged claiming that Hurricane Irma had caused sharks to be displaced onto a Florida highway. Similar stories, accompanied by the same image, resurfaced following Hurricanes Harvey and Florence. The disaster-affected nation may face international criticism and fail to receive necessary support due to its perceived inability to manage the crisis effectively. This lack of confidence from the global community can further exacerbate the challenges faced by the nation, leaving it more vulnerable and isolated in its time of need.
The spread of misinformation through social media severely hinders the administration of aid and relief operations during natural disasters since it hinders first responders' efforts to counteract and reduce the spread of misinformation, rumours, and false information and declines public trust in government, media, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), who are often the first point of contact for both victims and officials due to their familiarity with the region and the community. In Moldova, it was noted that foreign influence has exploited the ongoing drought to create divisions between the semi-autonomous regions of Transnistria and Gagauzia and the central government in Chisinau. News coverage critical of the government leverages economic and energy insecurities to incite civil unrest in this already unstable region. Additionally, First responders may struggle to locate victims and assist them to safety, complicating rescue operations. The inability to efficiently find and evacuate those in need can result in prolonged exposure to dangerous conditions and a higher risk of injury or death.
Further, international aid from other countries could be impeded, affecting the overall relief effort. Without timely and coordinated support from the global community, the disaster response may be insufficient, leaving many needs unmet. Further, misinformation also impedes military, reducing the effectiveness of rescue and relief operations. Military assistance often plays a crucial role in disaster response, and any delays can hinder efforts to provide immediate and large-scale aid.
Misinformation also creates problems of allocation of relief resources to unaffected areas which resultantly impacts aid processes for regions in actual need. Following the April 2015 earthquake in Nepal, a Facebook post claimed that 300 houses in Dhading needed aid. Shared over 1,000 times, it reached around 350,000 people within 48 hours. The originator aimed to seek help for Ward #4’s villagers via social media. Given the average Facebook user has 350 contacts, the message was widely viewed. However, the need had already been reported on quakemap.org, a crisis-mapping database managed by Kathmandu Living Labs, a week earlier. Helping Hands, a humanitarian group was notified on May 7, and by May 11, Ward #4 received essential food and shelter. The re-sharing and sensationalisation of outdated information could have wasted relief efforts since critical resources would have been redirected to a region that had already been secured.
Policy Recommendations
Perhaps the most important step in combating misinformation during natural disasters is the increasing public education and the rapid, widespread dissemination of early warnings. This was best witnessed in the November 1970 tropical cyclone in southeastern Bangladesh, combined with a high tide, struck southeastern Bangladesh, leaving more than 300,000 people dead and 1.3 million homeless. In May 1985, when a comparable cyclone and storm surge hit the same area, local dissemination of disaster warnings was much improved and the people were better prepared to respond to them. The loss of life, while still high (at about 10,000), the numbers were about 3% of that in 1970. On a similar note, when a devastating cyclone struck the same area of Bangladesh in May 1994, fewer than 1,000 people died. In India, the 1977 cyclone in Andra Pradesh killed 10,000 people, but a similar storm in the same area 13 years later killed only 910. The dramatic difference in mortalities was owed to a new early-warning system connected with radio stations to alert people in low-lying areas.
Additionally, location-based filtering for monitoring social media during disasters is considered as another best practice to curb misinformation. However, agencies should be aware that this method may miss local information from devices without geolocation enabled. A 2012 Georgia Tech study found that less than 1.4 percent of Twitter content is geolocated. Additionally, a study by Humanity Road and Arizona State University on Hurricane Sandy data indicated a significant decline in geolocation data during weather events.
Alternatively, Publish frequent updates to promote transparency and control the message. In emergency management and disaster recovery, digital volunteers—trusted agents who provide online support—can assist overwhelmed on-site personnel by managing the vast volume of social media data. Trained digital volunteers help direct affected individuals to critical resources and disseminate reliable information.
Enhancing the quality of communication requires double-verifying information to eliminate ambiguity and reduce the impact of misinformation, rumors, and false information must also be emphasised. This approach helps prevent alert fatigue and "cry wolf" scenarios by ensuring that only accurate, relevant information is disseminated. Prioritizing ground truth over assumptions and swiftly releasing verified information or acknowledging the situation can bolster an agency's credibility. This credibility allows the agency to collaborate effectively with truth amplifiers. Prebunking and Debunking methods are also effective way to counter misinformation and build cognitive defenses to recognise red flags. Additionally, evaluating the relevance of various social media information is crucial for maintaining clear and effective communication.
References
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40399-9#:~:text=Moreover%2C%20misinformation%20can%20create%20unnecessary,impacting%20the%20rescue%20operations29.
- https://www.redcross.ca/blog/2023/5/why-misinformation-is-dangerous-especially-during-disasters
- https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/blog/disinformation-during-natural-disasters-emerging-vulnerability
- https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-M dia-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf
Related Blogs
.webp)
Introduction
The Indian government has introduced initiatives to enhance data sharing between law enforcement and stakeholders to combat cybercrime. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has launched the Central Suspect Registry, Cyber Fraud Mitigation Center, Samanvay Platform and Cyber Commandos programme on the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) Foundation Day celebration took place on the 10th September 2024 at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. The ‘Central Suspect Registry’ will serve as a central-level database with consolidated data on cybercrime suspects nationwide. The Indian Cyber Crime Coordinating Center will share a list of all repeat offenders on their servers. Shri Shah added that the Suspect Registry at the central level and connecting the states with it will help in the prevention of cybercrime.
Key Highlights of Central Suspect Registry
The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) has established the suspect registry in collaboration with banks and financial intermediaries to enhance fraud risk management in the financial ecosystem. The registry will serve as a central-level database with consolidated data on cybercrime suspects. Using data from the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP), the registry makes it possible to identify cybercriminals as potential threats.
Central Suspect Registry Need of the Hour
The Union Home Minister of India, Shri Shah, has emphasized the need for a national Cyber Suspect Registry to combat cybercrime. He argued that having separate registries for each state would not be effective, as cybercriminals have no boundaries. He emphasized the importance of connecting states to this platform, stating it would significantly help prevent future cyber crimes.
CyberPeace Outlook
There has been an alarming uptick in cybercrimes in the country highlighting the need for proactive approaches to counter the emerging threats. The recently launched initiatives under the umbrella of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre will serve as significant steps taken by the centre to improve coordination between law enforcement agencies, strengthen user awareness, and offer technical capabilities to target cyber criminals and overall aim to combat the growing rate of cybercrime in the country.
References:
Introduction
Significantly, in March 2023, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002's regulations placed Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers functioning located under the purview of the Anti Money Laundering/Counter Financing of Terrorism (AML-CFT) scheme. An important step toward controlling VDA SP operations and guaranteeing adherence to Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML-CFT) regulations.
The significance of AML-CFT procedures
The AML-CFT framework's incorporation of Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDA SPs) is essential for protecting the banking industry from illegal activities including the laundering of funds and counter-financing of terrorist attacks. These regulations become more crucial as the market for digital assets develops and becomes more well-known.
The practice of money laundering is hiding the source of the sum received illegally, thus it's critical to have strict policies in place to track down and stop these kinds of operations. Furthermore, funding for terrorism is a serious danger to international safety, hence stopping the flow of money to terrorist companies is a top concern for global officials.
The goal of policymakers' move to include VDA SPs in the AML-CFT architecture is to set up control and surveillance procedures that will guarantee these organisations' open and honest operations. This involves tracking transactions, flagging questionable activity, and conducting extensive customer investigations. Incorporating such procedures not only reduces the potential for financial crimes but also builds confidence and trust in the electronic asset market.
It is important to see the significance of AML-CFT procedures and the changes in the legal framework to reflect the evolving characteristics of digital currencies. These procedures are essential to preserving the reliability and safety of the wider banking system.
Notifications of Compliance Show Cause
Under Section 13 of the PMLA Act 2002, FIU IND sent adherence Show Cause Notices to nine offshore Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDA SPs) as part of its dedication to upholding compliance with regulations. This affirmative step requires organisations to be scrutinised and attempted to bring them under inspection.
Governmental Response
The Director of FIU IND has addressed the Secretary of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to take further measures due to the disregard of offshore firms. According to the notification, URLs connected to these organisations that operate in India in violation of the PML Act's requirements must be blocked.
Mandatory Registration for VDA SPs
Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (both onshore and offshore) who perform a range of operations, including the trading of digital goods for monetary currencies, the distribution of digital currency, and the management or preservation of electronic assets, are now obliged to register with FIU.
Range of Statutory Responsibilities
In accordance with the PML Act, VDA SPs are subject to several requirements, including documentation, disclosure, and other duties. One of their responsibilities is to register with the FIU IND. The primary focus is on guaranteeing that VDA SPs comply with AML-CFT protocols, hence enhancing the general reliability of the banking industry.
Difficulties with Offshore Compliance
There are many obstacles in guaranteeing that offshore organisations comply with Anti Money Laundering/Counter Financing of Terrorism (AML-CFT), chief amongst them being their unwillingness to undergo registration. Some overseas Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDA SPs) have been reluctant to comply with the existing rules and regulations, even though they cater to a significant number of Indian users. There are several reasons for this hesitation, such as worries about heightened monitoring, the expense of compliance, and the apparent complexity of governmental processes. Regulatory organisations have taken steps to close the discrepancy between offshore businesses' real activities and the regulations they must follow. In addition to maintaining the trustworthiness of the economic system, resolving the issues with offshore adherence is essential for promoting confidence and openness in the market for electronic assets.
Conclusion
FIU IND has demonstrated its dedication to creating an effective regulatory framework for Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers through its recent measures. India hopes to fortify its countermeasures against money laundering and safeguard the financial well-being of its users by expanding the AML-CFT legislation to offshore firms. The continuous efforts to restrict the URLs of non-compliant companies show a proactive approach to stopping illicit activity and fostering a safe and law-abiding virtual asset ecosystem. The safety and soundness of the banking sector will be crucially maintained by laws and regulations as the digital world develops.
References
- https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1991372
- https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/books/reviews/business-economy/fiu-ind-issues-compliance-showcause-notices-to-nine-offshore-vda-sps/article67684613.ece
- https://business.outlookindia.com/news/fiu-issues-notice-to-9-offshore-crypto-platforms-writes-to-meity-for-blocking-of-urls
Introduction
Phone farms refer to setups or systems using multiple phones collectively. Phone farms are often for deceptive purposes, to create repeated actions in high numbers quickly, or to achieve goals. These can include faking popularity through increasing views, likes, and comments and growing the number of followers. It can also include creating the illusion of legitimate activity through actions like automatic app downloads, ad views, clicks, registrations, installations and in-app engagement.
A phone farm is a network where cybercriminals exploit mobile incentive programs by using multiple phones to perform the same actions repeatedly. This can lead to misattributions and increased marketing spends. Phone farming involves exploiting paid-to-watch apps or other incentive-based programs over dozens of phones to increase the total amount earned. It can also be applied to operations that orchestrate dozens or hundreds of phones to create a certain outcome, such as improving restaurant ratings or App Store Optimization(ASO). Companies constantly update their platforms to combat phone farming, but it is nearly impossible to prevent people from exploiting such services for their own benefit.
How Do Phone Farms Work?
Phone farms are a collection of connected smartphones or mobile devices used for automated tasks, often remotely controlled by software programs. These devices are often used for advertising, monetization, and artificially inflating app ratings or social media engagement. The software used in phone farms is typically a bot or script that interacts with the operating system and installed apps. The phone farm operator connects the devices to the Internet via wired or wireless networks, VPNs, or other remote access software. Once the software is installed, the operator can use a web-based interface or command-line tool to schedule and monitor tasks, setting specific schedules or monitoring device status for proper operation.
Modus Operandi Behind Phone Farms
Phone farms have gained popularity due to the growing popularity and scope of the Internet and the presence of bots. Phone farmers use multiple phones simultaneously to perform illegitimate activity and mimic high numbers. The applications can range from ‘watching’ movie trailers and clicking on ads to giving fake ratings and creating false engagements. When phone farms drive up ‘engagement actions’ on social media through numerous likes and post shares, they help perpetuate a false narrative. Through phone click farms, bad actors also earn on each ad or video watched. Phone farmers claim to use this as a side hustle, as a means of making more money. Click farms can be modeled as companies providing digital engagement services or as individual corporations to multiply clicks for various objectives. They are operated on a much larger scale, with thousands of employees and billions of daily clicks, impressions, and engagements.
The Legality of Phone Farms
The question about the legality of phone farms presents a conundrum. It is notable that phone farms are also used for legitimate application in software development and market research, enabling developers to test applications across various devices and operating systems simultaneously. However, they are typically employed for more dubious purposes, such as social media manipulation, generatiing fake clicks on online ads, spamming, spreading misinformation, and facilitating cyberattacks, and such use cases classify as illegal and unethical behaviour.
The use of the technology to misrepresent information for nefarious intents is illegitimate and unethical. Phone farms are famed for violating the terms of the apps they use to make money by simulating clicks, creating multiple fake accounts and other activities through multiple phones, which can be illegal.
Furthermore, should any entity misrepresent its image/product/services through fake reviews/ratings obtained through bots and phone farms and create deliberately-false impressions for consumers, it is to be considered an unfair trade practice and may attract liabilities.
CyberPeace Policy Recommendations
CyberPeace advocates for truthful and responsible consumption of technology and the Internet. Businesses are encouraged to refrain from using such unethical methods to gain a business advantage and mimic fake popularity online. Businesses must be mindful to avoid any actions that may misrepresent information and/ or cause injury to consumers, including online users. The ethical implications of phone farms cannot be ignored, as they can erode public trust in digital platforms and contribute to a climate of online deception. Law enforcement agencies and regulators are encouraged to keep a check on any illegal use of mobile devices by cybercriminals to commit cyber crimes. Tech and social media platforms must implement monitoring and detection systems to analyse any unusual behaviour/activity on their platforms, looking for suspicious bot activity or phone farming groups. To stay protected from sophisticated threats and to ensure a secure online experience, netizens are encouraged to follow cybersecurity best practices and verify all information from authentic sources.
Final Words
Phone farms have the ability to generate massive amounts of social media interactions, capable of performing repetitive tasks such as clicking, scrolling, downloading, and more in very high volumes in very short periods of time. The potential for misuse of phone farms is higher than the legitimate uses they can be put to. As technology continues to evolve, the challenge lies in finding a balance between innovation and ethical use, ensuring that technology is harnessed responsibly.
References
- https://www.branch.io/glossary/phone-farm/
- https://clickpatrol.com/phone-farms/
- https://www.airbridge.io/glossary/phone-farms#:~:text=A%20phone%20farm%20is%20a,monitor%20the%20tasks%20being%20performed
- https://innovation-village.com/phone-farms-exposed-the-sneaky-tech-behind-fake-likes-clicks-and-more/
