#FactCheck - Philadelphia Plane Crash Video Falsely Shared as INS Vikrant Attack on Karachi Port

Introduction 

The link between social media and misinformation is undeniable. Misinformation, particularly the kind that evokes emotion, spreads like wildfire on social media and has serious consequences, like undermining democratic processes, discrediting science, and promulgating hateful discourses which may incite physical violence. If left unchecked, misinformation propagated through social media has the potential to incite social disorder, as seen in countless ethnic clashes worldwide.  This is why social media platforms have been under growing pressure to combat misinformation and have been developing models such as fact-checking services and community notes to check its spread. This article explores the pros and cons of the models and evaluates their broader implications for online information integrity.

How the Models Work 

1. Third-Party Fact-Checking Model (formerly used by Meta) Meta initiated this program in 2016 after claims of extraterritorial election tampering through dis/misinformation on its platforms. It entered partnerships with third-party organizations like AFP and specialist sites like Lead Stories and PolitiFact, which are certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) for meeting neutrality, independence, and editorial quality standards. These fact-checkers identify misleading claims that go viral on platforms and publish verified articles on their websites, providing correct information. They also submit this to Meta through an interface, which may link the fact-checked article to the social media post that contains factually incorrect claims. The post then gets flagged for false or misleading content, and a link to the article appears under the post for users to refer to. This content will be demoted in the platform algorithm, though not removed entirely unless it violates Community Standards. However, in January 2025, Meta announced it was scrapping this program and beginning to test X’s Community Notes Model in the USA, before rolling it out in the rest of the world. It alleges that the independent fact-checking model is riddled with personal biases, lacks transparency in decision-making, and has evolved into a censoring tool. 
2. Community Notes Model ( Used by X and being tested by Meta): This model relies on crowdsourced contributors who can sign up for the program, write contextual notes on posts and rate the notes made by other users on X. The platform uses a bridging algorithm to display those notes publicly, which receive cross-ideological consensus from voters across the political spectrum. It does this by boosting those notes that receive support despite the political leaning of the voters, which it measures through their engagements with previous notes. The benefit of this system is that it is less likely for biases to creep into the flagging mechanism. Further, the process is relatively more transparent than an independent fact-checking mechanism since all Community Notes contributions are publicly available for inspection, and the ranking algorithm can be accessed by anyone, allowing for external evaluation of the system by anyone. 

CyberPeace Insights

Meta’s uptake of a crowdsourced model signals social media’s shift toward decentralized content moderation, giving users more influence in what gets flagged and why. However, the model’s reliance on diverse agreements can be a time-consuming process. A study (by Wirtschafter & Majumder, 2023) shows that only about 12.5 per cent of all submitted notes are seen by the public, making most misleading content go unchecked. Further, many notes on divisive issues like politics and elections may not see the light of day since reaching a consensus on such topics is hard. This means that many misleading posts may not be publicly flagged at all, thereby hindering risk mitigation efforts. This casts aspersions on the model’s ability to check the virality of posts which can have adverse societal impacts, especially on vulnerable communities. On the other hand, the fact-checking model suffers from a lack of transparency, which has damaged user trust and led to allegations of bias. 

Since both models have their advantages and disadvantages, the future of misinformation control will require a hybrid approach. Data accuracy and polarization through social media are issues bigger than an exclusive tool or model can effectively handle. Thus, platforms can combine expert validation with crowdsourced input to allow for accuracy, transparency, and scalability. 

Conclusion 

Meta’s shift to a crowdsourced model of fact-checking is likely to have bigger implications on public discourse since social media platforms hold immense power in terms of how their policies affect politics, the economy, and societal relations at large.  This change comes against the background of sweeping cost-cutting in the tech industry, political changes in the USA and abroad, and increasing attempts to make Big Tech platforms more accountable in jurisdictions like the EU and Australia, which are known for their welfare-oriented policies. These co-occurring contestations are likely to inform the direction the development of misinformation-countering tactics will take.  Until then, the crowdsourcing model is still in development, and its efficacy is yet to be seen, especially regarding polarizing topics. 

References 

• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/new-youtube-notes-feature-to-help-users-add-context-to-videos
• https://en-gb.facebook.com/business/help/315131736305613?id=673052479947730
• http://techxplore.com/news/2025-01-meta-fact.html 
• https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/ 
• https://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/about/introduction 
• https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/01/14/do-community-notes-work/?utm_source=chatgpt.com 
• https://www.techpolicy.press/community-notes-and-its-narrow-understanding-of-disinformation/ 
• https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/metas-shift-to-community-notes-model-proves-that-we-can-fix-big-problems-without-big-government/ 
• https://tsjournal.org/index.php/jots/article/view/139/57 

‍

The concept of web accessibility (i.e., access to the internet) stems from the recognition of internet access as an inalienable right. In 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) General Assembly referred to the access to Internet as an essential human right. The Supreme Court of India also declared such internet access as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Various international instruments of which India is a signatory, such as the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) mandate access to information. The heavy reliance on the internet and websites necessitates making the web space inclusive, navigational and accessible to all individuals, including persons with disabilities.

Various laws mandate web accessibility:

• Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016: The Right of Persons with Disability Act 2016 Is the primary document for the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities to ensure their full participation. The Act provides several direct and indirect provisions (such as Section 2(y) “Reasonable Accommodation”, Section 40 on “Accessibility”, and Section 42 on “Access to Information and Communication Technology”) to ensure that technology products and services are accessible to a person with disabilities. 
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017: The 2017 rules under Rule 15 (2) task the respective Ministries and Departments to ensure compliance with accessibility standards.
• Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW): The GIGW provide a framework for websites to be designed in accordance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 standards. The GIGW enables websites to obtain certification by the Standardisation Testing and Quality Certification Directorate, after audit. 

Various other policies include;

• National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility, 2013: The National Policy ("Policy") on Electronic Accessibility recognizes the need to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disabilities and to facilitate equal access to Electronics & ICTs. The National Policy also recognizes the diversity of differently-abled persons and provides for their specific needs. The Policy covers accessibility requirements in the area of Electronics & ICT by different stakeholders. It recognizes the need to ensure that accessibility standards, guidelines and universal design concepts are adopted and adhered to.
• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG): The WCAG defines how to make web content more accessible to persons with disabilities. While adhering to these guidelines is optional, various versions of the WCAG have been issued. It operates on four principles; perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. It provides a path to ensuring compliance and demonstrating reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.

However, despite the laws, web accessibility remains a challenge. A vast majority of Indian websites, especially e-commerce entities and several government websites remain inaccessible to persons with disabilities and most often do not conform with international accessibility standards. A report by the Centre of Internet and Society states that out of the 7800 websites of the Government of India, 5815 had accessibility barriers and 1985 websites failed to open. The report also notes that more than half of the websites had no navigation markup and only 52 websites had the option to change colours. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITy), during the 258^th Session of the Rajya Sabha on 9 December 2022 noted that 95 websites of the Central Government have been made accessible to persons with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, only 45 websites of the Central Government have been certified as compliant under the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW). As of that date, certification of the remaining governmental websites remains incomplete due to the pandemic. Meity also stated that the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities in 2017 sanctioned a project to be implemented by ERNET India for making 917 websites of State and Union territories. Under the project, a total of 647 websites have been made accessible as of that date.

Conclusion 

While India has established a robust legal framework and policies emphasizing the importance of web accessibility as a fundamental right, the existing gap between legislation and effective implementation poses a significant challenge. The reported accessibility barriers on numerous government and e-commerce websites indicate a pressing need for heightened efforts in enforcing and enhancing accessibility standards. 

In addressing these challenges, continued collaboration between government agencies, private entities and advocacy groups can play a crucial role. Ongoing monitoring, regular audits and public awareness campaigns may contribute to improving accessibility for persons with disabilities to ensure an inclusive environment and compliance with fundamental laws.

References:

1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2967-right-to-internet-and-fundamental-rights.html 
2. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15939/1/the_rights_of_persons_with_disabilities_act%2C_2016.pdf 
3. https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/National%20Policy%20on%20Universal%20Electronics%281%29_0.pdf 
4. https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/National%20Policy%20on%20Universal%20Electronics%281%29_0.pdf 
5. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#:~:text=Web%20Content%20Accessibility%20Guidelines%20(WCAG)%202.1%20defines%20how%20to%20make,%2C%20learning%2C%20and%20neurological%20disabilities. 
6. https://www.boia.org/blog/india-digital-accessibility-laws-an-overview
7. https://cis-india.org/accessibility/accessibility-of-govt-websites.pdf/view 
8. https://sansad.in/rs/questions/questions-and-answers  

Introduction

The Kerala High Court banned the use of mobile phones during office hours on the 2nd of December 2024, and issued an Official Memorandum titled, ‘Indulgence In Online Gaming And Watching Social Media Content During Office Hours’. This memorandum, issued by the Registrar General, prohibits mobile phone usage for personal activities such as gaming and social media during working hours. This memorandum aims to curb the productivity woes and reinforce professional discipline and further ensure the smooth functioning of the office operations. 

The memorandum reiterated its earlier notices from 2009 and 2013, where the High Court had emphasised that violations would be taken seriously. This reflects the High Court’s commitment to maintaining efficiency and professionalism in the workplace.  According to the memorandum, controlling officers will monitor the staff for violations and strict actions will be taken if the rules are flouted. 

Background

The circumstances that led to the Kerala HC’s decision are as follows: staff engaged in playing online games, browsing social media, watching videos or movies and even engaging in online shopping or trading during work hours, excluding the allocated lunch recess (as per the memorandum). 

As mentioned earlier, this memorandum is not the first of its kind. There were similar directives that were issued in 2009 and 2013 to target the poor productivity standards, rooted in the staff members' behaviours. The present memorandum is unlike the previously mentioned ones as, it specifically addresses the rise in mobile-based distractions, like online gaming and trading. The present directive does not outline any exceptions to senior officials with designated responsibilities, and emphasises universal adherence for all levels of the workforce. 

According to Cell Phones at Workplace Statistics, around 97% of workers use their smartphones during work hours, mixing personal and job-related activities. And more than 55% of managers say that cell phones are a major reason for lower productivity among employees.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that even though smartphones have become indispensable tools for communication, their misuse has wider implications for overall organisational productivity. 

CyberPeace Outlook

The Kerala High Court's decision to restrict personal mobile phone usage during work hours underscores the importance of fostering a disciplined and focused workplace environment. While smartphones are vital for communication, their misuse poses significant productivity challenges. Some proactive steps that employers can take are implementing clear policies, conducting regular training sessions and promoting a culture of accountability. Balancing digital freedom and professional responsibility is the key to ensuring that technological tools serve as enablers of efficiency rather than distractions in the workplace.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/kerala-high-court-issues-memo-banning-staff-from-gaming-and-social-media-during-work-hours/article68963949.ece
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/kerala-high-court-bans-mobile-gaming-and-social-media-for-staff-during-work-hours/articleshow/116101149.cms 
• https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2024-12-05/1hiq8ffv/Kerala_High_Court_OM.pdf 
• https://www.coolest-gadgets.com/cell-phones-at-workplace-statistics/