#FactCheck - Old SBI ATM Site Turned Salon Misrepresented in Viral Social Media Claim

Introduction

In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.

Brief Analysis of Prebunking 

Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation. 

The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it. 

The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.

There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution. 

Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions. 

Brief Analysis of Debunking 

Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem. 

Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.

Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts.  Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation.  Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.

Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis

Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions. 

1. Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions. 
2. Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
3. User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
4. Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.

Conclusion

The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential.  Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape. 

References

1. https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
2. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
3. https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
4. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/

‍

Executive Summary:

‍
A manipulated viral photo of a Maldivian building with an alleged oversized portrait of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the words "SURRENDER" went viral on social media. People responded with fear, indignation, and anxiety. Our research, however, showed that the image was manipulated and not authentic.

‍

‍

Claim:

‍
A viral image claims that the Maldives displayed a huge portrait of PM Narendra Modi on a building front, along with the phrase “SURRENDER,” implying an act of national humiliation or submission.

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

After a thorough examination of the viral post, we got to know that it had been altered. While the image displayed the same building, it was wrong to say it included Prime Minister Modi’s portrait along with the word “SURRENDER” shown in the viral version. We also checked the image with the Hive AI Detector, which marked it as 99.9% fake. This further confirmed that the viral image had been digitally altered.

‍

‍

During our research, we also found several images from Prime Minister Modi’s visit, including one of the same building displaying his portrait, shared by the official X handle of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF). The post mentioned “His Excellency Prime Minister Shri @narendramodi was warmly welcomed by His Excellency President Dr.@MMuizzu at Republic Square, where he was honored with a Guard of Honor by #MNDF on his state visit to Maldives.” This image, captured from a different angle, also does not feature the word “surrender.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

‍
The claim that the Maldives showed a picture of PM Modi with a surrender message is incorrect and misleading. The image is altered and is being spread to mislead people and stir up controversy. Users should check the authenticity of photos before sharing.

• Claim: Viral image shows the Maldives mocking India with a surrender sign
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

Introduction

In an era expounded by rapid communications and live coverage of global affairs, users often encounter misinformation continuously, and it has emerged as a huge challenge. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, believed to be true, and shared without any intention to deceive. On the other hand, disinformation refers to false information that is intended to mislead, especially with set propaganda. It steadily affects all aspects of life and can even lead to a profound impact on geopolitics, international relations, wars, etc. When modern media announces “breaking news,” it captures attention and keeps viewers engaged. In the rush for television rating points, information may be circulated without proper fact-checking. This urgency can result in the spread of unverified claims and the elevation of irrelevant details, while truly important issues are overlooked. Such practices can distort public understanding and impact strategic political decisions.

Misinformation and Fake News in Recent History

The phenomenon of misinformation is not limited to isolated incidents but has become a recurring feature of political events around the globe. This business has increasingly become visible in recent political history, where it has not only sensationalised the general public but also affected international relations and democratic outcomes. For example, during Slovakia’s elections in 2023, the country experienced a major surge of online misinformation. Over 365,000 misleading posts were posted on social media platforms, majorly influencing public opinion and leading to challenges for voters. A lot of this content was amplified by political leaders. The media's rush to deliver content sometimes makes it easier for false narratives to dominate the public sphere, shaping voter opinions and undermining informed political discourse.

Current Geopolitical Interference by Misinformation

In the recent Hamas-Israel conflict, manipulated images and unverified reports complicated diplomacy. Such campaigns distort facts, complicate humanitarian responses, and escalate conflicts. This growing trend shows how misinformation now acts as a weapon of war, exploiting media urgency and undermining international stability.

Indo–Pak Conflict Exaggeration

The India-Pakistan conflict is a long-dragged and complex issue in South Asia. It has been continuously dragged from traditional to contemporary media. But in recent tensions and war situations media raised serious concerns about misinformation. Live media coverage can sometimes mislead the public with speculative information. The live coverage continuously addressed it as breaking news and escalated excitement and fear, distorting the reality on the ground. Moreover, the real-time reporting of sensitive military activities like mock drills, blackouts, troop movements, air strikes, etc., interfered with strategic operations. Such reporting may lead to obstructing decision-making processes and placing operational missions at risk. Later Defence Ministry called it out in one of their X posts. Such media-driven exaggeration causes mass hysteria, and eventually, emotional and patriotic sentiments are evoked. 

Legal and Political Recommendations 

The intersection of media urgency and national security may have serious geopolitical repercussions if not managed with legal and ethical restrictions. International Frameworks like UNESCO‘s Guidelines for regulating Digital Platforms, 2023, and the Digital Services Act, 2022, regulate and govern digital platforms.

Despite the existence of international and national guidelines, there remains an urgent need to strengthen cyber laws by imposing strict penalties and compensation mechanisms for the dissemination of unverified information. Media outlets must also refrain from indiscriminately labelling every report as “breaking news.” Since the modern media deals in digital data, the protection of strategic state movements should be regulated with checks and balances. 

Ethical considerations should be maintained during the publication or streaming of any information. Media should have self-regulations to fact-check and publish only authorised and double-verified information. 

Given the borderless nature of the internet and the rapid, global spread of misinformation, international cooperation is imperative. Addressing the challenges posed by cross-border mis/disinformation requires a shared understanding and coordinated response among states at the global level.

References

• https://pam.int/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/EN-Background-paper-on-disinformation-and-fake-news-Jan-2024.pdf
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3172349
• https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/04/draft2_guidelines_for_regulating_digital_platforms_en.pdf
• https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en

‍