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

Introduction

The Australian Parliament has passed the world’s first legislation regarding a ban on social media for children under 16. This was done citing risks to the mental and physical well-being of children and the need to contain misogynistic influence on them. The debate surrounding the legislation is raging strong, as it is the first proposal of its kind and would set precedence for how other countries can assess their laws regarding children and social media platforms and their priorities. 

The Legislation

Currently trailing an age-verification system (such as biometrics or government identification), the legislation mandates a complete ban on underage children using social media, setting the age limit to 16 or above. Further, the law does not provide exemptions of any kind, be it for pre-existing accounts or parental consent. With federal elections approaching, the law seeks to address parental concerns regarding measures to protect their children from threats lurking on social media platforms. Every step in this regard is being observed with keen interest. 

The Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, emphasised that the onus of taking responsible steps toward preventing access falls on the social media platforms, absolving parents and their children of the same. Social media platforms like TikTok, X, and Meta Platforms’ Facebook and Instagram all come under the purview of this legislation.

CyberPeace Overview

The issue of a complete age-based ban raises a few concerns:

1. It is challenging to enforce digitally as children might find a way to circumnavigate such restrictions. An example would be the Cinderella Law, formally known as the Shutdown Law, which the Government of South Korea had implemented back in 2011 to reduce online gaming and promote healthy sleeping habits among children. The law mandated the prohibition of access to online gaming for children under the age of 16 between 12 A.M. to 6 A.M. However, a few drawbacks rendered it less effective over time. Children were able to use the login IDs of adults, switch to VPN, and even switch to offline gaming. In addition, parents also felt the government was infringing on the right to privacy and the restrictions were only for online PC games and did not extend to mobile phones. Consequently, the law lost relevance and was repealed in 2021.  
2. The concept of age verification inherently requires collecting more personal data and inadvertently opens up concerns regarding individual privacy. 
3. A ban is likely to reduce the pressure on tech and social media companies to develop and work on areas that would make their services a safe child-friendly environment. 

Conclusion

Social media platforms can opt for an approach that focuses on how to create a safe environment online for children as they continue to deliberate on restrictions. An example of an impactful-yet-balanced step towards the protection of children on social media while respecting privacy is the U.K.'s Age-Appropriate Design Code (UK AADC). It is the U.K.’s implementation of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), prepared by the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office), the U.K. data protection regulator. It follows a safety-by-design approach for children. As we move towards a future that is predominantly online, we must continue to strive and create a safe space for children and address issues in innovative ways.

References

1. https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/australia-proposes-ban-on-social-media-for-children-under-16-9657544/
2. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-children-be-barred-from-social-media/article68661342.ece
3. https://forumias.com/blog/debates-on-whether-children-should-be-banned-from-social-media/
4. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/why-banning-kids-from-social-media-wont-solve-the-youth-mental-health-crisis/articleshow/113328111.cms
5. https://iapp.org/news/a/childrens-privacy-laws-and-freedom-of-expression-lessons-from-the-uk-age-appropriate-design-code
6. https://www.techinasia.com/s-koreas-cinderella-law-finally-growing-up-teens-may-soon-be-able-to-play-online-after-midnight-again
7. https://wp.towson.edu/iajournal/2021/12/13/video-gaming-addiction-a-case-study-of-china-and-south-korea/
8. https://www.dailysabah.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-passes-worlds-1st-total-social-media-ban-for-children

‍

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/

‍

Introduction

Twitter Inc.’s appeal against barring orders for specific accounts issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was denied by a single judge on the Karnataka High Court. Twitter Inc. was also given an Rs. 50 lakh fine by Justice Krishna Dixit, who claimed the social media corporation had approached the court defying government directives.

As a foreign corporation, Twitter’s locus standi had been called into doubt by the government, which said they were ineligible to apply Articles 19 and 21 to their situation. Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.

The Issue

In accordance with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Ministry issued the directives. Nevertheless, Twitter had argued in its appeal that the orders “fall foul of Section 69A both substantially and procedurally.” Twitter argued that in accordance with 69A, account holders were to be notified before having their tweets and accounts deleted. However, the Ministry failed to provide these account holders with any notices.

On June 4, 2022, and again on June 6, 2022, the government sent letters to Twitter’s compliance officer requesting that they come before them and provide an explanation for why the Blocking Orders were not followed and why no action should be taken against them.

Twitter replied on June 9 that the content against which it had not followed the blocking orders does not seem to be a violation of Section 69A. On June 27, 2022, the Government issued another notice stating Twitter was violating its directions. On June 29, Twitter replied, asking the Government to reconsider the direction on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality. On June 30, 2022, the Government withdrew blocking orders on ten account-level URLs but gave an additional list of 27 URLs to be blocked. On July 10, more accounts were blocked. Compiling the orders “under protest,” Twitter approached the HC with the petition challenging the orders.

Legality

Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.

Government attorney Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan argued that tweets mentioning “Indian Occupied Kashmir” and the survival of LTTE commander Velupillai Prabhakaran were serious enough to undermine the integrity of the nation.

Twitter, on the other hand, claimed that its users have pushed for these rights. Additionally, Twitter maintained that under Article 14 of the Constitution, even as a foreign company, they were entitled to certain rights, such as the right to equality. They also argued that the reason for the account blocking in each case was not stated and that Section 69a’s provision for blocking a URL should only apply to the offending URL rather than the entire account because blocking the entire account would prevent the creation of information while blocking the offending tweet only applied to already-created information.

Conclusion

The evolution of cyberspace has been substantiated by big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and many more. These companies have been instrumental in leading the spectrum of emerging technologies and creating a blanket of ease and accessibility for users. Compliance with laws and policies is of utmost priority for the government, and the new bills and policies are empowering the Indian cyberspace. Non Compliance will be taken very seriously, and the same is legalised under the Intermediary Guidelines 2021 and 2022 by Meity. Referring to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which pertains to an exemption from liability of intermediary in some instances, it was said, “Intermediary is bound to obey the orders which the designate authority/agency which the government fixes from time to time.”