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

Introduction

‍

Online dating platforms have become a common way for individuals to connect in today’s digital age. For many in the LGBTQ+ community, especially in environments where offline meeting spaces are limited, these platforms offer a way to find companionship and support. However, alongside these opportunities come serious risks. Users are increasingly being targeted by cybercrimes such as blackmail, sextortion, identity theft, and online harassment. These incidents often go unreported due to stigma and concerns about privacy. The impact of such crimes can be both emotional and financial, highlighting the need for greater awareness and digital safety.

‍

Cybercrime On LGBTQ+ Dating Apps: A Threat Landscape

‍

According to the NCRB 2022 report, there has been a 24.4% increase in cybercrimes. But unfortunately, the queer community-specific data is not available.  Cybercrimes that target LGBTQ+ users in very organised and predatory. In several Indian cities, gangs actively monitor dating platforms to the point that potential victims, especially young queers and those who seem discreet about their identity, become targets. Once the contact is established, perpetrators use a standard operating process, building false trust, forcing private exchanges, and then gradually starting blackmail and financial exploitation. Many queer victims are blackmailed with threats of exposure to families or workplaces, often by fake police demanding bribes. Fear of stigma and insensitive policing discourages reporting. Cyber criminal gangs exploit these gaps on dating apps. Despite some arrests, under-reporting persists, and activists call for stronger platform safety.

‍

Types of Cyber Crimes against Queer Community on Dating Apps

‍

1. Romance scam or “Lonely hearts scam”: Scammers build trust with false stories (military, doctors, NGO workers) and quickly express strong romantic interest. They later request money, claiming emergencies. They often try to create multiple accounts to avoid profile bans. 
2. Sugar daddy scam: In this type of scam, the fraudster offers money or allowance in exchange for things like chatting, sending photos, or other interactions. They usually offer a specific amount and want to use some uncommon payment gateways. After telling you they will send you a lot of money, they often make up a story like: “My last sugar baby cheated me, so now you must first send me a small amount to prove you are trustworthy.” This is just a trick to make you send them money first.
3. Sextortion / Blackmail scam: Scammers record explicit chats or pretend to be underage, then threaten exposure unless you pay. Some target discreet users. Never send explicit content or pay blackmailers. 
4. Investment Scams: Scammers posing as traders or bankers convince victims to invest in fake opportunities. Some "flip" small amounts to build trust, then disappear with larger sums. Real investors won’t approach you on dating apps. Don’t share financial info or transfer money.
5. Pay-Before-You-Meet scam: Scammer demands upfront payment (gift cards, gas money, membership fees) before meeting, then vanishes. Never pay anyone before meeting in person.
6. Security app registration scam: Scammers ask you to register on fake "security apps" to steal your info, claiming it ensures your safety. Research apps before registering. Be wary of quick link requests.
7. The Verification code scam: Scammers trick you into giving them SMS verification codes, allowing them to hijack your accounts. Never share verification codes with anyone.
8. Third-party app links: Mass spam messages with suspicious links that steal info or infect devices. Don’t click suspicious links or “Google me” messages.
9. Support message scam: Messages pretending to be from application support, offering prizes or fake shows to lure you to malicious sites. 

‍

Platform Accountability & Challenges 

‍

The issue of online dating platforms in India is characterised by weak grievance redressal, poor takedown of abusive profiles, and limited moderation practices. Most platforms appoint grievance officers or offer an in-app complaint portal, but complaints are often unanswered or receive only automated and AI-generated responses. This highlights the gap between policy and enforcement on the ground.

Abusive or fake profiles, often used for scams, hate crimes, and outing LGBTQ+ individuals, remain active long after being reported. In India, organised extortion gangs have exploited such profiles to lure, assault, rob, and blackmail queer men. Moderation teams often struggle with backlogs and lack the resources needed to handle even the most serious complaints.

Despite offering privacy settings and restricting profile visibility, moderation practices in India are still weak, leaving large segments of users vulnerable to impersonation, catfishing, and fraud. The concept of pseudonymisation can help protect vulnerable communities, but it is difficult to distinguish authentic users from malicious actors without robust, privacy-respecting verification systems. 

Since many LGBTQ+ individuals prefer to maintain their confidentiality, while others are more vocal about their identities, in either case, the data shared by an individual with an online dating platform must be vigilantly protected. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, mandates the protection of personal data. Section 8(4) provides: “A Data Fiduciary shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure effective observance of the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.” Accordingly, digital platforms collecting such data should adopt the necessary technical and organisational measures to comply with data protection laws.

Recommendations

‍

The Supreme Court has been proactive in this regard, through decisions like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalised same-sex relationships. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors., acknowledged the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and, most recently, the 2025 affirmation of the right to digital access. However, to protect LGBTQ+ people online, more robust legal frameworks are still required.

There is a requirement for a dedicated commission or an empowered LGBTQ+ cell. Like the National Commission for Women (NCW), which works to safeguard the rights of women, a similar commission would address community-specific issues, including cybercrime, privacy violations, and discrimination on digital platforms. It may serve as an institutional link between the victim, the digital platforms, the government, and the police. Dating Platforms must enhance their security features and grievance mechanisms to safeguard the users.

Best Practices

‍

Scammers use data sets and plans to target individuals seeking specific interests, such as love, sex, money, or association. Do not make financial transactions, such as signing up for third-party platforms or services. Scammers may attempt to create accounts for others, which can be used to access dating platforms and harm legitimate users. Users should be vigilant about sharing sensitive information, such as private images, contact information, or addresses, as scammers can use this information to threaten users. Stay smart, stay cyber safe. 

‍

References

1. https://www.hindustantimes.com/htcity/cinema/16yearold-queer-child-pranshu-dies-by-suicide-due-to-bullying-did-we-fail-as-a-society-mental-health-expert-opines-101701172202794.html#google_vignette
2. https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v11i6/SR22617213031.pdf
3. https://help.grindr.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500009328241-Scam-awareness-guide
4. http://meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf
5. https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-02/IT%28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital%20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20English.pdf

‍

India’s cities are rapidly embracing digital technologies, transforming the way essential urban services operate. From traffic management and water supply to online grievance redressal, connected systems are making city life more efficient. As the Prime Minister has emphasised, smart cities are not just a fancy  concept; they aim to ensure basic services, including housing and infrastructure for the urban poor, are delivered comprehensively and equitably.

But improved cybersecurity has become essential with th increasing reliance on digital systems in daily life. A single breach in digital public systems could jeopardise citizen data and interrupt vital services. In light of this, MoHUA organised the National Conference on Making Cities Cyber Secure in collaboration with MHA and MeitY. This is in spirit with the goal of Digital India, which is to create a safer online environment for all.  More than 300 representatives from Central Ministries, National Cybersecurity Agencies, State Governments, State IT and Urban Development Secretaries, Additional Director Generals, Municipal Commissioners, CEOs of Smart Cities, and representatives from organisations like CERT-In, NCIIPC, I4C, and STQC attended the conference.

Key Initiatives Presented

MoHUA showcased a series of city-level cybersecurity initiatives designed to create a common framework for all smart cities. These include:

• Mandatory appointment of Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) at city level which maintain and oversee the security of digital infrastructure in smart cites 
• Completion of regular cybersecurity audits to identify and address vulnerabilities in there seem 
• Consistent Risk Management Across Services: A structured approach to risk management will be used so that critical areas like traffic systems, utilities and public services all follow the same high standards of protection.

CISOs and Cybersecurity Frameworks

At the conference,  the Union Home Secretary underscored a clear message: every city needs its own Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) backed by a capable technical team. This isn’t just a box-ticking exercise. A dedicated CISO brings focus to meeting national security norms, coordinating quick responses to cyber incidents, and lifting the overall level of cyber hygiene in the city.

Naming a single officer also creates accountability and gradually builds local expertise instead of constant dependence on outside consultants. Over time, this leadership position can help cities develop their own in-house capacity to manage the increasingly complex digital systems that keep public services running.

The SPV Dimension: Beyond Implementation

An important theme of the conference was the future of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs)(SPVs means government-backed companies set up under the Companies Act, 2013 with joint shareholding between State/UT administrations and Urban Local Bodies to implement the Smart Cities Mission) which have been the implementing arms of the Smart Cities Mission. Drawing from Advisory No. 27 (June 2025), stakeholders discussed repositioning SPVs as dynamic, innovation-driven bodies capable of supporting long-term urban development beyond the initial project phase.

Key points included:

• Expanding SPVs’ role in consultancy, investment facilitation, technology integration, and policy research.
• Ensuring SPVs act as hubs of expertise and innovation, rather than just project managers.
• Aligning SPV functions with the evolving cybersecurity and technology needs of urban local bodies.

This expanded mandate could allow SPVs to become sustainable institutions that continuously support cities in managing digital risks and adopting new technologies responsibly.

Building a Culture of Cyber Preparedness

One clear takeaway from the conference was that cybersecurity can’t just be added on later — it needs to be part of every step in the digital planning process, from purchasing technology and designing systems to daily operations. Experts from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) pointed out that as more government services go online, the potential risks grow, and cities must always be ready to respond. They  highlighted emerging cyber risks linked to the rapid digitisation of governance. 

Some of the practical steps highlighted included regular security audits, penetration testing, staff training, and campaigns to raise awareness among citizens. Equally important to have CISO which lead cybersecurity and  creating strong communication channels between city teams, state agencies, and national cybersecurity bodies, so that information is shared promptly and responses can be coordinated effectively

Conclusion

The Ministry of Home Affairs’ directive on strengthening cybersecurity in smart cities represents a major milestone in safeguarding India’s urban digital infrastructure and shows the government's proactive step in cybersecurity . By mandating the appointment of Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs), enforcing regular audits, and promoting structured risk management, the MHA has set clear expectations for city administration. The conference also highlighted the evolving role of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) in supporting long-term technological resilience. Embedding cybersecurity at every stage of planning, from system design to daily operations, signals a shift toward a culture of proactive defence. As highlighted by the Intelligence Bureau, emerging cyber risks linked to the rapid digitisation of governance make robust cybersecurity measures the need of the hour for India’s smart cities.

1. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2146180 
2. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2135474 
3. https://m.economictimes.com/news/economy/infrastructure/pm-narendra-modi-launches-smart-city-projects/articleshow/52916581.cms 
4. https://the420.in/mha-orders-stronger-cybersecurity-in-smart-cities/ 
5. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Sep/20/tighten-cyber-security-measures-in-smart-cities-mha-to-housing-ministry 

‍

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/

‍