#Fact Check – Analysis of Viral Claims Regarding India's UNSC Permanent Membership

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍

In the vast, uncharted territories of the digital world, a sinister phenomenon is proliferating at an alarming rate. It's a world where artificial intelligence (AI) and human vulnerability intertwine in a disturbing combination, creating a shadowy realm of non-consensual pornography. This is the world of deepfake pornography, a burgeoning industry that is as lucrative as it is unsettling.

According to a recent assessment, at least 100,000 deepfake porn videos are readily available on the internet, with hundreds, if not thousands, being uploaded daily. This staggering statistic prompts a chilling question: what is driving the creation of such a vast number of fakes? Is it merely for amusement, or is there a more sinister motive at play?

Recent Trends and Developments 

An investigation by India Today’s Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) team reveals that deepfake pornography is rapidly morphing into a thriving business. AI enthusiasts, creators, and experts are extending their expertise, investors are injecting money, and even small financial companies to tech giants like Google, VISA, Mastercard, and PayPal are being misused in this dark trade. Synthetic porn has existed for years, but advances in AI and the increasing availability of technology have made it easier—and more profitable—to create and distribute non-consensual sexually explicit material. The 2023 State of Deepfake report by Home Security Heroes reveals a staggering 550% increase in the number of deepfakes compared to 2019. 

What’s the Matter with Fakes? 

But why should we be concerned about these fakes? The answer lies in the real-world harm they cause. India has already seen cases of extortion carried out by exploiting deepfake technology. An elderly man in UP’s Ghaziabad, for instance, was tricked into paying Rs 74,000 after receiving a deep fake video of a police officer. The situation could have been even more serious if the perpetrators had decided to create deepfake porn of the victim.

The danger is particularly severe for women. The 2023 State of Deepfake Report estimates that at least 98 percent of all deepfakes is porn and 99 percent of its victims are women. A study by Harvard University refrained from using the term “pornography” for creating, sharing, or threatening to create/share sexually explicit images and videos of a person without their consent. “It is abuse and should be understood as such,” it states.

Based on interviews of victims of deepfake porn last year, the study said 63 percent of participants talked about experiences of “sexual deepfake abuse” and reported that their sexual deepfakes had been monetised online. It also found “sexual deepfake abuse to be particularly harmful because of the fluidity and co-occurrence of online offline experiences of abuse, resulting in endless reverberations of abuse in which every aspect of the victim’s life is permanently disrupted”.

Creating deepfake porn is disturbingly easy. There are largely two types of deepfakes: one featuring faces of humans and another featuring computer-generated hyper-realistic faces of non-existing people. The first category is particularly concerning and is created by superimposing faces of real people on existing pornographic images and videos—a task made simple and easy by AI tools.

During the investigation, platforms hosting deepfake porn of stars like Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone, Jennifer Aniston, Aishwarya Rai, Rashmika Mandanna to TV actors and influencers like Aanchal Khurana, Ahsaas Channa, and Sonam Bajwa and Anveshi Jain were encountered. It takes a few minutes and as little as Rs 40 for a user to create a high-quality fake porn video of 15 seconds on platforms like FakeApp and FaceSwap.

The Modus Operandi 

These platforms brazenly flaunt their business association and hide behind frivolous declarations such as: the content is “meant solely for entertainment” and “not intended to harm or humiliate anyone”. However, the irony of these disclaimers is not lost on anyone, especially when they host thousands of non-consensual deepfake pornography.

As fake porn content and its consumers surge, deepfake porn sites are rushing to forge collaborations with generative AI service providers and have integrated their interfaces for enhanced interoperability. The promise and potential of making quick bucks have given birth to step-by-step guides, video tutorials, and websites that offer tools and programs, recommendations, and ratings.

Nearly 90 per cent of all deepfake porn is hosted by dedicated platforms that charge for long-duration premium fake content and for creating porn—of whoever a user wants, and take requests for celebrities. To encourage them further, they enable creators to monetize their content.

One such website, Civitai, has a system in place that pays “rewards” to creators of AI models that generate “images of real people'', including ordinary people. It also enables users to post AI images, prompts, model data, and LoRA (low-rank adaptation of large language models) files used in generating the images. Model data designed for adult content is gaining great popularity on the platform, and they are not only targeting celebrities. Common people are equally susceptible.

Access to premium fake porn, like any other content, requires payment. But how can a gateway process payment for sexual content that lacks consent? It seems financial institutes and banks are not paying much attention to this legal question. During the investigation, many such websites accepting payments through services like VISA, Mastercard, and Stripe were found.

Those who have failed to register/partner with these fintech giants have found a way out. While some direct users to third-party sites, others use personal PayPal accounts to manually collect money in the personal accounts of their employees/stakeholders, which potentially violates the platform's terms of use that ban the sale of “sexually oriented digital goods or content delivered through a digital medium.”

 Among others, the MakeNude.ai web app – which lets users “view any girl without clothing” in “just a single click” – has an interesting method of circumventing restrictions around the sale of non-consensual pornography. The platform has partnered with Ukraine-based Monobank and Dublin’s BetaTransfer Kassa which operates in “high-risk markets”.

BetaTransfer Kassa admits to serving “clients who have already contacted payment aggregators and received a refusal to accept payments, or aggregators stopped payments altogether after the resource was approved or completely freeze your funds”. To make payment processing easy, MakeNude.ai seems to be exploiting the donation ‘jar’ facility of Monobank, which is often used by people to donate money to Ukraine to support it in the war against Russia.

The Indian Scenario 

India currently is on its way to design dedicated legislation to address issues arising out of deepfakes. Though existing general laws requiring such platforms to remove offensive content also apply to deepfake porn. However, persecution of the offender and their conviction is extremely difficult for law enforcement agencies as it is a boundaryless crime and sometimes involves several countries in the process.

A victim can register a police complaint under provisions of Section 66E and Section 66D of the IT Act, 2000. Recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 aims to protect the digital personal data of users. Recently Union Government issued an advisory to social media intermediaries to identify misinformation and deepfakes. Comprehensive law promised by Union IT minister Ashwini Vaishnav will be able to address these challenges.

Conclusion 

In the end, the unsettling dance of AI and human vulnerability continues in the dark web of deepfake pornography. It's a dance that is as disturbing as it is fascinating, a dance that raises questions about the ethical use of technology, the protection of individual rights, and the responsibility of financial institutions. It's a dance that we must all be aware of, for it is a dance that affects us all.

References

• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/deepfake-porn-artificial-intelligence-women-fake-photos-2471855-2023-12-04
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/the-legal-net-to-trap-peddlers-of-deepfakes-101701520933515.html
• https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/with-deepfakes-getting-better-and-more-alarming-seeing-is-no-longer-believing/

Introduction

Misinformation poses a significant challenge to public health policymaking since it undermines efforts to promote effective health interventions and protect public well-being. The spread of inaccurate information, particularly through online channels such as social media and internet platforms, further complicates the decision-making process for policymakers since it perpetuates public confusion and distrust. This misinformation can lead to resistance against health initiatives, such as vaccination programs, and fuels scepticism towards scientifically-backed health guidelines.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation surrounding healthcare largely encompassed the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption, marijuana use, eating habits, physical exercise etc. However, there has been a marked shift in the years since. One such example is the outcry against palm oil in 2024: it is an ingredient prevalent in numerous food and cosmetic products, and came under the scanner after a number of claims that palmitic acid, which is present in palm oil, is detrimental to our health. However, scientific research by reputable institutions globally established that there is no cause for concern regarding the health risks posed by palmitic acid. Such trends and commentaries tend to create a parallel unscientific discourse that has the potential to not only impact individual choices but also public opinion and as a result, market developments and policy conversations. 

A prevailing narrative during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic was that the virus had been engineered to control society and boost hospital profits. The extensive misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and its management and care increased vaccine hesitancy amongst people worldwide. It is worth noting that vaccine hesitancy has been a consistent trend historically; the World Health Organisation flagged vaccine hesitancy as one of the main threats to global health, and there have been other instances where a majority of the population refused to get vaccinated anticipating unverified, long-lasting side effects. For example, research from 2016 observed a significant level of public skepticism regarding the development and approval process of the Zika vaccine in Africa. Further studies emphasised the urgent need to disseminate accurate information about the Zika virus on online platforms to help curb the spread of the pandemic. 

In India during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite multiple official advisories, notifications and guidelines issued by the government and ICMR, people continued to remain opposed to vaccination, which resulted in inflated mortality rates within the country. Vaccination hesitancy was also compounded by anti-vaccination celebrities who claimed that vaccines were dangerous and contributed in large part to the conspiracy theories doing the rounds. Similar hesitation was noted in misinformation surrounding the MMR vaccines and their likely role in causing autism was examined.  At the time of the crisis, the Indian government also had to tackle disinformation-induced fraud surrounding the supply of oxygens in hospitals. Many critically-ill patients relied on fake news and unverified sources that falsely portrayed the availability of beds, oxygen cylinders and even home set-ups, only to be cheated out of money. 

The above examples highlight the difficulty health officials face in administering adequate healthcare. The special case of the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted how current legal frameworks failed to address misinformation and disinformation, which impedes effective policymaking. It also highlights how taking corrective measures against health-related misinformation becomes difficult since such corrective action creates an uncomfortable gap in an individual’s mind, and it is seen that people ignore accurate information that may help bridge the gap. Misinformation, coupled with the infodemic trend, also leads to false memory syndrome, whereby people fail to differentiate between authentic information and fake narratives. Simple efforts to correct misperceptions usually backfire and even strengthen initial beliefs, especially in the context of complex issues like healthcare. Policymakers thus struggle with balancing policy making and making people receptive to said policies in the backdrop of their tendencies to reject/suspect authoritative action. Examples of the same can be observed on both the domestic front and internationally. In the US, for example, the traditional healthcare system rations access to healthcare through a combination of insurance costs and options versus out-of-pocket essential expenses. While this has been a subject of debate for a long time, it hadn’t created a large scale public healthcare crisis because the incentives offered to the medical professionals and public trust in the delivery of essential services helped balance the conversation. In recent times, however, there has been a narrative shift that sensationalises the system as an issue of deliberate “denial of care,” which has led to concerns about harms to patients.

Policy Recommendations

The hindrances posed by misinformation in policymaking are further exacerbated against the backdrop of policymakers relying on social media as a method to measure public sentiment, consensus and opinions. If misinformation about an outbreak is not effectively addressed, it could hinder individuals from adopting necessary protective measures and potentially worsen the spread of the epidemic. To improve healthcare policymaking amidst the challenges posed by health misinformation, policymakers must take a multifaceted approach. This includes convening a broad coalition of central, state, local, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, and research partners to assess the impact of misinformation and develop effective preventive measures. Intergovernmental collaborations such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should be encouraged whereby doctors debunk online medical misinformation, in the backdrop of the increased reliance on online forums for medical advice. Furthermore, increasing investment in research dedicated to understanding misinformation, along with the ongoing modernization of public health communications, is essential. Enhancing the resources and technical support available to state and local public health agencies will also enable them to better address public queries and concerns, as well as counteract misinformation. Additionally, expanding efforts to build long-term resilience against misinformation through comprehensive educational programs is crucial for fostering a well-informed public capable of critically evaluating health information.

From an individual perspective, since almost half a billion people use WhatsApp it has become a platform where false health claims can spread rapidly. This has led to a rise in the use of fake health news. Viral WhatsApp messages containing fake health warnings can be dangerous, hence it is always recommended to check such messages with vigilance. This highlights the growing concern about the potential dangers of misinformation and the need for more accurate information on medical matters.

Conclusion

The proliferation of misinformation in healthcare poses significant challenges to effective policymaking and public health management. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the role of misinformation in vaccine hesitancy, fraud, and increased mortality rates. There is an urgent need for robust strategies to counteract false information and build public trust in health interventions; this includes policymakers engaging in comprehensive efforts, including intergovernmental collaboration, enhanced research, and public health communication modernization, to combat misinformation. By fostering a well-informed public through education and vigilance, we can mitigate the impact of misinformation and promote healthier communities.

References

1. van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Jin, Y. (2019), “Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source” Health Communication, 35(5), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295 
2. “Health Misinformation”, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/health-misinformation/index.html 
3. Mechanic, David, “The Managed Care Backlash: Perceptions and Rhetoric in Health Care Policy and the Potential for Health Care Reform”, Rutgers University. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751184/pdf/milq_195.pdf 
4. “Bad actors are weaponising health misinformation in India”, Financial Express, April 2024.

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-bad-actors-are-weaponising-health-misinformation-in-india-3448871/ 

5. “Role of doctors in eradicating misinformation in the medical sector.”, Times of India, 1 July 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/national-doctors-day-role-of-doctors-in-eradicating-misinformation-in-the-healthcare-sector/articleshow/111399098.cms 

‍