#FactCheck - AI Generated Photo Circulating Online Misleads About BARC Building Redesign

Executive Summary

‍
A disturbing video showing a man assaulting a bhelpuri vendor is being widely shared on social media. In the video, a man approaches the bhelpuri vendor, eats bhelpuri from his basket, spits on him and appears to assault him. Social media users are sharing the video claiming that it is from Patna and are demanding action against the man seen behaving indecently. CyberPeace Research Wing’s Research found that the video is scripted. It is being shared on social media with a misleading claim.

‍

Claim:

‍

A social media user shared the viral video with the caption: “A video has surfaced showing the alleged mistreatment of a young man selling bhelpuri at Patna Junction railway station. It is alleged that some people misbehaved with the vendor after eating bhelpuri and put bhelpuri into his mouth. Why should a poor, hardworking person be treated this way? The Bihar government and the concerned railway authorities should investigate the video and take appropriate action. Samrat Choudhary ji, please also look into this incident reported at Patna railway station.”

https://www.facebook.com/reel/29198229276436585 

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the truth behind the video being shared with the claim that a bhelpuri vendor was assaulted, we conducted a reverse image search of its keyframes. During the search, we found a video uploaded on September 18 on the Facebook account of a user identified as Sonu Paswan. The person seen assaulting the vendor in the viral clip can also be seen in this video. In the video, he explains that the viral clip was scripted and was recorded solely for entertainment purposes. He appeals to people not to take the video seriously or share it further. He also says that after the video went viral, he had to delete several videos, due to which much of his effort went to waste.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2161698368111775 

‍

‍

Additionally, upon examining Sonu Paswan’s Facebook account, we found several other videos in which the same two men seen in the viral video can be seen acting together in different situations.

‍

‍

Additionally, we found a video uploaded on Sonu Paswan’s Instagram account on September 18. In the video, he explains that the person selling bhelpuri/bhujia in the viral clip is Sonu Kumar, while the person seen assaulting him is a member of their team. Sonu Kumar says in the video that they work together to create videos on poverty and emotional issues. He also appeals to people to watch the viral clip as entertainment and not share it further. This makes it clear that the viral video is scripted.

‍

https://www.instagram.com/p/Dda41TdzMxO/

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our Research found that the video being shared with the claim that a bhelpuri vendor was assaulted and mistreated at Patna railway station is scripted.

‍

Introduction

In September 2024, the Australian government announced the  Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 ( CLA Bill 2024 hereon), to provide new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the statutory regulatory body for Australia's communications and media infrastructure, to combat online misinformation and disinformation. It proposed allowing the ACMA to hold digital platforms accountable for the “seriously harmful mis- and disinformation” being spread on their platforms and their response to it, while also balancing freedom of expression. However, the Bill was subsequently withdrawn, primarily over concerns regarding the possibility of censorship by the government. This development is reflective of the global contention on the balance between misinformation regulation and freedom of speech. 

Background and Key Features of the Bill

According to the BBC’s Global Minds Survey of 2023, nearly 73% of Australians struggled to identify fake news and AI-generated misinformation. There has been a substantial rise in misinformation on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during major events like the bushfires of 2020 and the 2022 federal elections. The government’s campaign against misinformation was launched against this background, with the launch of The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation in 2021. The main provisions of the CLA Bill, 2024 were: 

1. Core Transparency Obligations of Digital Media Platforms: Publishing current media literacy plans,  risk assessment reports, and policies or information on their approach to addressing mis- and disinformation. The ACMA would also be allowed to make additional rules regarding complaints and dispute-handling processes.
2. Information Gathering and Record-Keeping Powers: The ACMA would form rules allowing it to gather consistent information across platforms and publish it. However, it would not have been empowered to gather and publish user information except in limited circumstances.
3. Approving Codes and Making Standards: The ACMA would have powers to approve codes developed by the industry and make standards regarding reporting tools, links to authoritative information, support for fact-checking, and demonetisation of disinformation. This would make compliance mandatory for relevant sections of the industry. 
4. Parliamentary Oversight: The transparency obligations, codes approved and standards set by ACMA under the Bill would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. ACMA would be required to report to the Parliament annually. 
5. Freedom of Speech Protections: End-users would not be required to produce information for ACMA unless they are a person providing services to the platform, such as its employees or fact-checkers. Further,  it would not be allowed to call for removing content from platforms unless it involved inauthentic behavior such as bots. 
6. Penalties for Non-Compliance: ACMA would be required to employ a “graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach” to non-compliance and enforcement in the form of formal warnings, remedial directions, injunctions, or significant civil penalties as decided by the courts, subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). No criminal penalties would be imposed.

Key Concerns

• Inadequacy of Freedom of Speech Protections: The biggest contention on this Bill has been regarding the issue of possible censorship, particularly of alternative opinions that are crucial to the health of a democratic system. To protect the freedom of speech, the Bill defined mis- and disinformation, what constitutes “serious harm” (election interference, harming public health, etc.), and what would be excluded from its scope. However, reservations among the Opposition persisted due to the lack of a clear mechanism to protect divergent opinions from the purview of this Bill. 
• Efficacy of Regulatory Measures: Many argue that by allowing the digital platform industry to make its codes, this law lets it self-police. Big Tech companies have no incentive to curb misinformation effectively since their business models allow them to reap financial benefits from the rampant spread of misinformation. Unless there are financial non- or dis- incentives to curb misinformation, Big Tech is not likely to address the situation at war footing.  Thus, this law would run the risk of being toothless. Secondly, the Bill did not require platforms to report on the “prevalence of” false content which, along with other metrics,  is crucial for researchers and legislators to track the efficacy of the current misinformation-curbing practices employed by platforms.  
• Threat of Government Overreach:  The Bill sought to expand the ACMA’s compliance and enforcement powers concerning misinformation and disinformation on online communication platforms by giving it powers to form rules on information gathering, code registration, standard-making powers, and core transparency obligations. However, even though the ACMA as a regulatory authority is answerable to the Parliament, the Bill was unclear in defining limits to these powers. This raised concerns from civil society about potential government overreach in a domain filled with contextual ambiguities regarding information.

Conclusion

While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill sought to equip the ACMA with tools to hold digital platforms accountable and mitigate the harm caused by false information, its critique highlights the complexities of regulating such content without infringing on freedom of speech. Legislations and proposals regarding the matter all over the world are having to contend with this challenge. Globally, legislation and proposals addressing this issue face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for a continuous discourse at the intersection of platform accountability, regulatory restraint, and the protection of diverse viewpoints.

To regulate Big Tech effectively, governments can benefit from adopting a consultative, incremental, and cooperative approach, as exemplified by the European Union’s Digital Services Act 2023. Such a framework provides for a balanced response, fostering accountability while safeguarding democratic freedoms.

Resources

• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-misinformation-disinformation-bill.pdf 
• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation 
• https://www.mi-3.com.au/07-02-2024/over-80-australians-feel-they-may-have-fallen-fake-news-says-bbc 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/misinformation-inquiry 
• https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2024 
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-is-the-misinformation-bill-and-why-has-it-triggered-worries-about-freedom-of-speech/4n3ijebde 
• https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic#:~:text=The%20Telegraph%20Act%20allows%20authorities,preventing%20incitement%20to%20the%20commission 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/submissions/2024/11/8/submission-combatting-misinformation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation&utm_content=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation+Preview+CID_31c6d7200ed9bd2f7f6f596ba2a8b1fb&utm_source=Email%20campaign&utm_term=Read%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Law%20Centres%20submission%20to%20the%20inquiry

‍

Introduction

Big Tech has been pushing back against regulatory measures, particularly regarding data handling practices. X Corp (formerly Twitter) has taken a prominent stance in India. The platform has filed a petition against the Central and State governments, challenging content-blocking orders and opposing the Center’s newly launched Sahyog portal.  The X Corp has furthermore labelled the Sahyog Portal as a 'censorship portal' that enables government agencies to issue blocking orders using a standardized template.

The key regulations governing the tech space in India include the IT Act of 2000,  IT Rules 2021 and 2023 (which stress platform accountability and content moderation), and the DPDP Act 2023, which intersects with personal data governance. This petition by the X Corp raises concerns for digital freedom, platform accountability, and the evolving regulatory frameworks in India. 

Elon Musk vs Indian Government: Key Issues at Stake

The 2021 IT Rules, particularly Rule 3(1)(d) of Part II, outline intermediaries' obligations regarding ‘Content Takedowns’. Intermediaries must remove or disable access to unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government notification. Notably, the rules do not require government takedown requests to be explicitly in writing, raising concerns about potential misuse. 

X’s petition also focuses on the Sahyog Portal, a government-run platform that allows various agencies and state police to request content removal directly. They contend that the failure to comply with such orders can expose intermediaries' officers to prosecution. This has sparked controversy, with platforms like Elon Musk’s X arguing that such provisions grant the government excessive control, potentially undermining free speech and fostering undue censorship.

The broader implications include geopolitical tensions, potential business risks for big tech companies, and significant effects on India's digital economy, user engagement, and platform governance. Balancing regulatory compliance with digital rights remains a crucial challenge in this evolving landscape.

The Global Context: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

The ‘EU's Digital Services Act’ establishes a baseline 'notice and takedown' system. According to the Act, hosting providers, including online platforms, must enable third parties to notify them of illegal content, which they must promptly remove to retain their hosting defence. The DSA also mandates expedited removal processes for notifications from trusted flaggers, user suspension for those with frequent violations, and enhanced protections for minors. Additionally, hosting providers have to adhere to specific content removal obligations, including the elimination of terrorist content within one hour and deploying technology to detect known or new CSAM material and remove it.

In contrast to the EU, the US First Amendment protects speech from state interference but does not extend to private entities. Dominant digital platforms, however, significantly influence discourse by moderating content, shaping narratives, and controlling advertising markets. This dual role creates tension as these platforms balance free speech, platform safety, and profitability.

India has adopted a model closer to the EU's approach, emphasizing content moderation to curb misinformation, false narratives, and harmful content. Drawing from the EU's framework, India could establish third-party notification mechanisms, enforce clear content takedown guidelines, and implement detection measures for harmful content like terrorist material and CSAM within defined timelines. This would balance content regulation with platform accountability while aligning with global best practices.

Key Concerns and Policy Debates

As the issue stands, the main concerns that arise are:

1. The need for transparency in government orders for takedowns, the reasons and a clear framework for why they are needed and the guidelines for doing so. 
2. The need for balancing digital freedom with national security and the concerns that arise out of it for tech companies. Essentially, the role platforms play in safeguarding the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution of India. 
3. This court ruling by the Karnataka HC will have the potential to redefine the principles upon which the intermediary guidelines function under the Indian laws. 

Potential Outcomes and the Way Forward

While we wait for the Hon’ble Court’s directives and orders in response to the filed suit, while the court's decision could favour either side or lead to a negotiated resolution, the broader takeaway is the necessity of collaborative policymaking that balances governmental oversight with platform accountability. This debate underscores the pressing need for a structured and transparent regulatory framework for content moderation. Additionally, this case also highlights the importance of due process in content regulation and the need for legal clarity for tech companies operating in India. Ultimately, a consultative and principles-based approach will be key to ensuring a fair and open digital ecosystem.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/elon-musks-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations/article69352961.ece
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/elon-musk-s-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations-101742463516588.html
• https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-explainer-why-has-x-accused-govt-of-censorship-3788648/
• https://thelawreporters.com/elon-musk-s-x-sues-indian-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations ‍
• https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/digilinks/2023/february/the-eu-digital-services-act---a-new-era-for-online-harms-and-intermediary-liability