Delhi High Court Directs Centre to Nominate Members for Deepfake Committee

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/ 

‍

Introduction

The ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hamas/ Palestine is in the news all across the world. The latest conflict was triggered by unprecedented attacks against Israel by Hamas militants on October 7, killing thousands of people. Israel has launched a massive counter-offensive against the Islamic militant group. Amid the war, the bad information and propaganda spreading on various social media platforms, tech researchers have detected a network of 67 accounts that posted false content about the war and received millions of views. The ‘European Commission’ has sent a letter to Elon Musk, directing them to remove illegal content and disinformation; otherwise, penalties can be imposed. The European Commission has formally requested information from several social media giants on their handling of content related to the Israel-Hamas war. This widespread disinformation impacts and triggers the nature of war and also impacts the world and affects the goodwill of the citizens. The bad group, in this way, weaponise the information and fuels online hate activity, terrorism and extremism, flooding political polarisation with hateful content on social media. Online misinformation about the war is inciting extremism, violence, hate and different propaganda-based ideologies. The online information environment surrounding this conflict is being flooded with disinformation and misinformation, which amplifies the nature of war and too many fake narratives and videos are flooded on social media platforms.

Response of social media platforms 

As there is a proliferation of online misinformation and violent content surrounding the war, It imposes a question on social media companies in terms of content moderation and other policy shifts.  It is notable that Instagram, Facebook and X(Formerly Twitter) all have certain features in place giving users the ability to decide what content they want to view. They also allow for limiting the potentially sensitive content from being displayed in search results.

The experts say that It is of paramount importance to get a sort of control in this regard and define what is permissible online and what is not, Hence, what is required is expertise to determine the situation, and most importantly, It requires robust content moderation policies. 

During wartime, people who are aggrieved or provoked are often targeted by this internet disinformation that blends ideological beliefs and spreads conspiracy theories and hatred. This is not a new phenomenon, it is often observed that disinformation-spreading groups emerged and became active during such war and emergency times and spread disinformation and propaganda-based ideologies and influence the society at large by misrepresenting the facts and planted stories. Social media has made it easier to post user-generated content without properly moderating it. However, it is a shared responsibility of tech companies, users, government guidelines and policies to collectively define and follow certain mechanisms to fight against disinformation and misinformation.  

Digital Services Act (DSA)

The newly enacted EU law, i.e. Digital Services Act, pushes various larger online platforms to prevent posts containing illegal content and also puts limits on targeted advertising. DSA enables to challenge the of illegal online content and also poses requirements to prevent misinformation and disinformation and ensure more transparency over what the users see on the platforms. Rules under the DSA cover everything from content moderation & user privacy to transparency in operations. DSA is a landmark EU legislation moderating online platforms.  Large tech platforms are now subject to content-related regulation under this new EU law ‘The Digital Services Act’, which also requires them to prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation and overall ensure a safer online environment.

Indian Scenario

The Indian government introduced the Intermediary Guidelines (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, updated in 2023 which talks about the establishment of a "fact check unit" to identify false or misleading online content. Digital Personal Data Protection, 2023 has also been enacted which aims to protect personal data. The upcoming Digital India bill is also proposed to be tabled in the parliament, this act will replace the current Information & Technology Act, of 2000. The upcoming Digital India bill can be seen as future-ready legislation to strengthen India’s current cybersecurity posture. It will comprehensively deal with the aspects of ensuring privacy, data protection, and fighting growing cyber crimes in the evolving digital landscape and ensuring a safe digital environment. Certain other entities including civil societies are also actively engaged in fighting misinformation and spreading awareness for safe and responsible use of the Internet. 

Conclusion:

The widespread disinformation and misinformation content amid the Israel-Hamas war showcases how user-generated content on social media shows you the illusion of reality. There is widespread misinformation, misleading content or posts on social media platforms, and misuse of new advanced AI technologies that even make it easier for bad actors to create synthetic media content. It is also notable that social media has connected us like never before. Social media is a great platform with billions of active social media users around the globe, it offers various conveniences and opportunities to individuals and businesses. It is just certain aspects that require the attention of all of us to prevent the bad use of social media. The social media platforms and regulatory authorities need to be vigilant and active in clearly defining and improving the policies for content regulation and safe and responsible use of social media which can effectively combat and curtail the bad actors from misusing social media for their bad motives. As a user, it's the responsibility of users to exercise certain duties and promote responsible use of social media. With the increasing penetration of social media and the internet, misinformation is rampant all across the world and remains a global issue which needs to be addressed properly by implementing strict policies and adopting best practices to fight the misinformation. Users are encouraged to flag and report misinformative or misleading content on social media and should always verify it from authentic sources. Hence creating a safer Internet environment for everyone.

References:

• https://abcnews.go.com/US/experts-fear-hate-extremism-social-media-israel-hamas-war/story?id=104221215
• https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/14/tech/social-media-misinformation-israel-hamas/index.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/business/israel-hamas-misinformation-social-media-x.html
• https://www.africanews.com/2023/10/24/fact-check-misinformation-about-the-israel-hamas-war-is-flooding-social-media-here-are-the//
• https://www.theverge.com/23845672/eu-digital-services-act-explained

‍

Introduction

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has mandated banks to switch their digital banking domains to 'Bank.in' by October 31, 2025, as part of a strategy to modernise the sector and maintain consumer confidence. The move is expected to provide a consistent and secure interface for online banking, as a response to the increasing threats posed by cybercriminals who exploit vulnerabilities in online platforms. The RBI's directive is seen as a proactive measure to address the growing concerns over cybersecurity in the banking sector.

RBI  Circular - Migration to '.bank.in' domain

The official circular released by the RBI dated April 22, 2025, read as follows:

“It has now been decided to operationalise the ‘. bank.in’ domain for banks through the Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology (IDRBT), which has been authorised by National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), under the aegis of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), to serve as the exclusive registrar for this domain. Banks may contact IDRBT at sahyog@idrbt.ac.in to initiate the registration process. IDRBT shall guide the banks on various aspects related to application process and migration to new domain.”

“All banks are advised to commence the migration of their existing domains to the ‘.bank.in’ domain and complete the process at the earliest and in any case, not later than October 31, 2025.”

CyberPeace Outlook

The Reserve Bank of India's directive mandating banks to shift to the 'Bank.in' domain by October 31, 2025, represents a strategic and forward-looking measure to modernise the nation’s digital banking infrastructure. With this initiative, the RBI is setting a new benchmark in cybersecurity by creating a trusted, exclusive domain that banks must adopt. This move will drastically reduce cyber threats, phishing attacks, and fake banking websites, which have been major sources of financial fraud. This fixed domain will simplify verification for consumers and tech platforms to more easily identify legitimate banking websites and apps.  Furthermore, a strong drop in online financial fraud will have a long-term effect by this order.  Since phishing and domain spoofing are two of the most prevalent forms of cybercrime, a shift to a strictly regulated domain name system will remove the potential for lookalike URLs and fraudulent websites that mimic banks. As India’s digital economy grows, RBI’s move is timely, essential, and future-ready.

References

• https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=12837&Mode=0

‍