#FactCheck: Fake Claim that US has used Indian Airspace to attack Iran

Misinformation spread has become a cause for concern for all stakeholders, be it the government, policymakers, business organisations or the citizens. The current push for combating misinformation is rooted in the growing awareness that misinformation leads to sentiment exploitation and can result in economic instability, personal risks, and a rise in political, regional, and religious tensions. The circulation of misinformation poses significant challenges for organisations, brands and administrators of all types. The spread of misinformation online poses a risk not only to the everyday content consumer, but also creates concerns for the sharer but the platforms themselves. Sharing misinformation in the digital realm, intentionally or not, can have real consequences.

Consequences for Platforms

Platforms have been scrutinised for the content they allow to be published and what they don't. It is important to understand not only how this misinformation affects platform users, but also its impact and consequences for the platforms themselves. These consequences highlight the complex environment that social media platforms operate in, where the stakes are high from the perspective of both business and societal impact. They are:

• Legal Consequences: Platforms can be fined by regulators if they fail to comply with content moderation or misinformation-related laws and a prime example of such a law is the Digital Services Act of the EU, which has been created for the regulation of digital services that act as intermediaries for consumers and goods, services, and content. They can face lawsuits by individuals, organisations or governments for any damages due to misinformation. Defamation suits are part of the standard practice when dealing with misinformation-causing vectors.  In India, the Prohibition of Fake News on Social Media Bill of 2023 is in the pipeline and would establish a regulatory body for fake news on social media platforms. 
• Reputational Consequences: Platforms employ a trust model where the user trusts it and its content. If a user loses trust in the platform because of misinformation, it can reduce engagement. This might even lead to negative coverage that affects the public opinion of the brand, its value and viability in the long run. 
• Financial Consequences: Businesses that engage with the platform may end their engagement with platforms accused of misinformation, which can lead to a revenue drop. This can also have major consequences affecting the long-term financial health of the platform, such as a decline in stock prices.
• Operational Consequences: To counter the scrutiny from regulators, the platform might need to engage in stricter content moderation policies or other resource-intensive tasks, increasing operational costs for the platforms. 
• Market Position Loss: If the reliability of a platform is under question, then, platform users can migrate to other platforms, leading to a loss in the market share in favour of those platforms that manage misinformation more effectively.
• Freedom of Expression vs. Censorship Debate: There needs to be a balance between freedom of expression and the prevention of misinformation. Censorship can become an accusation for the platform in case of stricter content moderation and if the users feel that their opinions are unfairly suppressed. 
• Ethical and Moral Responsibilities: Accountability for platforms extends to moral accountability as they allow content that affects different spheres of the user's life such as public health, democracy etc. Misinformation can cause real-world harm like health misinformation or inciting violence, which leads to the fact that platforms have social responsibility too.

Misinformation has turned into a global issue and because of this, digital platforms need to be vigilant while they navigate the varying legal, cultural and social expectations across different jurisdictions. Efforts to create standardised practices and policies have been complicated by the diversity of approaches, leading platforms to adopt flexible strategies for managing misinformation that align with global and local standards.

Addressing the Consequences

These consequences can be addressed by undertaking the following measures:

• The implementation of a more robust content moderation system by the platforms using a combination of AI and human oversight for the identification and removal of misinformation in an effective manner. 
• Enhancing the transparency in platform policies for content moderation and decision-making would build user trust and reduce the backlash associated with perceived censorship. 
• Collaborations with fact checkers in the form of partnerships to help verify the accuracy of content and reduce the spread of misinformation.
• Engage with regulators proactively to stay ahead of legal and regulatory requirements and avoid punitive actions. 
• Platforms should Invest in media literacy initiatives and help users critically evaluate the content available to them. 

Final Takeaways

The accrual of misinformation on digital platforms has resulted in presenting significant challenges across legal, reputational, financial, and operational functions for all stakeholders. As a result, a critical need arises where the interlinked, but seemingly-exclusive priorities of preventing misinformation and upholding freedom of expression must be balanced. Platforms must invest in the creation and implementation of a robust content moderation system with in-built transparency, collaborating with fact-checkers, and media literacy efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of misinformation. In addition to this, adapting to diverse international standards is essential to maintaining their global presence and societal trust.

References

• https://pirg.org/edfund/articles/misinformation-on-social-media/ 
• https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/12/674
• https://scroll.in/article/1057626/israel-hamas-war-misinformation-is-being-spread-across-social-media-with-real-world-consequences 
• https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/01-09-2022-infodemics-and-misinformation-negatively-affect-people-s-health-behaviours--new-who-review-finds 

‍

Introduction

Misinformation and disinformation are significant issues in today's digital age. The challenge is not limited to any one sector or industry, and has been seen to affect everyone that deals with data of any sort. In recent times, we have seen a rise in misinformation about all manner of subjects, from product and corporate misinformation to manipulated content about regulatory or policy developments.  

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) play an important role in economies, particularly in developing nations, by promoting employment, innovation, and growth. However, in the evolving digital landscape, they also confront tremendous hurdles, such as the dissemination of mis/disinformation which may harm reputations, disrupt businesses, and reduce consumer trust. MSMEs are particularly susceptible since they have minimal resources at their disposal and cannot afford to invest in the kind of talent, technology and training that is needed for a business to be able to protect itself in today’s digital-first ecosystem. Mis/disinformation for MSMEs can arise from internal communications, supply chain partners, social media, competitors, etc. To address these dangers, MSMEs must take proactive steps such as adopting frameworks to counter misinformation and prioritising best practices like digital literacy and training, monitoring and social listening, transparency protocols and robust communication practices.

Assessing the Impact of Misinformation on MSMEs

To assess the impact of misinformation on MSMEs, it is essential to get a full sense of the challenges. To begin with, one must consider the categories of damage which can include financial loss, reputational damage, operational damages, and regulatory noncompliance. Various assessment methodologies can be used to analyze the impact of misinformation, including surveys, interviews, case studies, social media and news data analysis, and risk analysis practices.

Policy Framework and Gaps in Addressing Misinformation

The Digital India Initiative, a flagship program of the Government of India, aims to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the rules made therein govern the technology space and serve as the legal framework for cyber security and data protection. The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 also contains provisions regarding ‘fake news’. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is a brand new law aimed at protecting personal data. Fact-check units (FCUs) are government and private independent bodies that verify claims about government policies, regulations, announcements, and measures. However, these policy measures are not sector-specific and lack specific guidelines, which have limited impact on their awareness initiatives on misinformation and insufficient support structure for MSMEs to verify information and protect themselves.

Recommendations for Countering Misinformation in the MSME Sector

To counter misinformation for MSMEs, recommendations include creating a dedicated Misinformation Helpline, promoting awareness campaigns, creating regulatory support and guidelines, and collaborating with tech platforms and expert organisations for the identification and curbing of misinformation. 

Organisational recommendations include the Information Verification Protocols for the consumers of Information for the verification of critical information before acting upon it, engaging in employee training for regular training on the identification and management of misinformation, creating a crisis management plan to deal with misinformation crisis, form collaboration networks with other MSMEs to share verified information and best practices. 

Engage with technological solutions like AI and ML tools for the detection and flagging of potential misinformation along with fact-checking tools and engaging with cyber security measures to prevent misinformation via digital channels.

Conclusion: Developing a Vulnerability Assessment Framework for MSMEs

Creating a vulnerability assessment framework for misinformation in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in India involves several key components which include the understanding of the sources and types of misinformation, assessing the impact on MSMEs, identifying the current policies and gaps, and providing actionable recommendations. The implementation strategy for policies to counter misinformation in the MSME sector can be by starting with pilot programs in key MSME clusters, and stakeholder engagement by involving industry associations, tech companies and government bodies. Initiating a feedback mechanism for constant improvement of the framework and finally, developing a plan to scale successful initiatives across the country.

References

• https://publications.ut-capitole.fr/id/eprint/48849/1/wp_tse_1516.pdf 
• https://techinformed.com/how-misinformation-can-impact-businesses/ 
• https://pib.gov.in/aboutfactchecke.aspx 

‍

Introduction

Global cybersecurity spending is expected to breach USD 210 billion in 2025, a ~10% increase from 2024 (Gartner). This is a result of an evolving and increasingly critical threat landscape enabled by factors such as the proliferation of IoT devices, the adoption of cloud networks, and the increasing size of the internet itself.  Yet, breaches, misuse, and resistance persist. In 2025, global attack pressure rose ~21% Y-o-Y ( Q2 averages) (CheckPoint) and confirmed breaches climbed ~15%( Verizon DBIR). This means that rising investment in cybersecurity may not be yielding proportionate reductions in risk. But while mechanisms to strengthen technical defences and regulatory frameworks are constantly evolving, the social element of trust and how to embed it into cybersecurity systems remain largely overlooked.   

‍

Human Error and Digital Trust  (Individual Trust) 

‍

Human error is consistently recognised as the weakest link in cybersecurity. While campaigns focusing on phishing prevention, urging password updates and using two-factor authentication (2FA) exist, relying solely on awareness measures to address human error in cyberspace is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Rather, it needs to be examined through the lens of digital trust. As Chui (2022) notes, digital trust rests on security,  dependability, integrity, and authenticity. These factors determine whether users comply with cybersecurity protocols. When people view rules as opaque, inconvenient, or imposed without accountability, they are more likely to cut corners, which creates vulnerabilities. Therefore, building digital trust means shifting from blaming people to design: embedding transparency, usability, and shared responsibility towards a culture of cybersecurity so that users are incentivised to make secure choices. 

‍

Organisational Trust and Insider Threats (Institutional Trust)

At the organisational level, compliance with cybersecurity protocols is significantly tied to whether employees trust employers/platforms to safeguard their data and treat them with integrity. Insider threats, stemming from both malicious and non-malicious actors, account for nearly 60% of all corporate breaches (Verizon DBIR 2024). A lack of trust in leadership may cause employees to feel disengaged or even act maliciously.  Further, a 2022 study by Harvard Business Review finds that adhering to cybersecurity protocols adds to employee workload. When they are perceived as hindering productivity, employees are more likely to intentionally violate these protocols.  The stress of working under surveillance systems that feel cumbersome or unreasonable, especially when working remotely, also reduces employee trust and, hence, compliance.  

‍

Trust, Inequality, and Vulnerability (Structural Trust)

Cyberspace encompasses a social system of its own since it involves patterned interactions and relationships between human beings. It also reproduces the social structures and resultant vulnerabilities of the physical world. As a result,  different sections of society place varying levels of trust in digital systems.  Women, rural, and marginalised groups often distrust existing digital security provisions more, and with reason. They are targeted disproportionately by cyber attackers, and yet are underprotected by systems, since these are designed prioritising urban/ male/ elite users.  This leads to citizens adopting workarounds like password sharing for “safety” and disengaging from cyber safety discourse, as they find existing systems inaccessible or irrelevant to their realities. Cybersecurity governance that ignores these divides deepens exclusion and mistrust.

‍

Laws and Compliances (Regulatory Trust)

Cybersecurity governance is operationalised in the form of laws, rules, and guidelines. However, these may often backfire due to inadequate design, reducing overall trust in governance mechanisms. For example, CERT-In’s mandate to report breaches within six hours of “noticing” it has been criticised as the steep timeframe being insufficient to generate an effective breach analysis report. Further, the multiplicity of regulatory frameworks in cross-border interactions can be costly and lead to compliance fatigue for organisations. Such factors can undermine organisational and user trust in the regulation’s ability to protect them from cyber attacks, fuelling a check-box-ticking culture for cybersecurity.  

‍

Conclusion 

Cybersecurity is addressed primarily through code, firewall, and compliance today. But evidence suggests that technological and regulatory fixes, while essential, are insufficient to guarantee secure behaviour and resilient systems. Without trust in institutions, technologies, laws or each other, cybersecurity governance will remain a cat-and-mouse game.  Building a trust-based architecture requires mechanisms to improve accountability, reliability, and transparency.  It requires participatory designs of security systems and the recognition of unequal vulnerabilities. Thus, unless cybersecurity governance acknowledges that cyberspace is deeply social,  investment may not be able to prevent the harms it seeks to curb. 

‍

References 

• https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-07-29
• https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/global-cyber-attacks-surge-21-in-q2-2025
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2024-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2025-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://insights2techinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Building-Digital-Trust-Challenges-and-Strategies-in-Cybersecurity.pdf 
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cyberviolence/cyberviolence-against-women 
• https://www.upguard.com/blog/indias-6-hour-data-breach-reporting-rule 

‍