#FactCheck-Mock Drill Video from Kishtwar Falsely Shared as Terror Attack in Jammu & Kashmir

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

Misinformation poses a significant challenge to public health policymaking since it undermines efforts to promote effective health interventions and protect public well-being. The spread of inaccurate information, particularly through online channels such as social media and internet platforms, further complicates the decision-making process for policymakers since it perpetuates public confusion and distrust. This misinformation can lead to resistance against health initiatives, such as vaccination programs, and fuels scepticism towards scientifically-backed health guidelines.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation surrounding healthcare largely encompassed the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption, marijuana use, eating habits, physical exercise etc. However, there has been a marked shift in the years since. One such example is the outcry against palm oil in 2024: it is an ingredient prevalent in numerous food and cosmetic products, and came under the scanner after a number of claims that palmitic acid, which is present in palm oil, is detrimental to our health. However, scientific research by reputable institutions globally established that there is no cause for concern regarding the health risks posed by palmitic acid. Such trends and commentaries tend to create a parallel unscientific discourse that has the potential to not only impact individual choices but also public opinion and as a result, market developments and policy conversations. 

A prevailing narrative during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic was that the virus had been engineered to control society and boost hospital profits. The extensive misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and its management and care increased vaccine hesitancy amongst people worldwide. It is worth noting that vaccine hesitancy has been a consistent trend historically; the World Health Organisation flagged vaccine hesitancy as one of the main threats to global health, and there have been other instances where a majority of the population refused to get vaccinated anticipating unverified, long-lasting side effects. For example, research from 2016 observed a significant level of public skepticism regarding the development and approval process of the Zika vaccine in Africa. Further studies emphasised the urgent need to disseminate accurate information about the Zika virus on online platforms to help curb the spread of the pandemic. 

In India during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite multiple official advisories, notifications and guidelines issued by the government and ICMR, people continued to remain opposed to vaccination, which resulted in inflated mortality rates within the country. Vaccination hesitancy was also compounded by anti-vaccination celebrities who claimed that vaccines were dangerous and contributed in large part to the conspiracy theories doing the rounds. Similar hesitation was noted in misinformation surrounding the MMR vaccines and their likely role in causing autism was examined.  At the time of the crisis, the Indian government also had to tackle disinformation-induced fraud surrounding the supply of oxygens in hospitals. Many critically-ill patients relied on fake news and unverified sources that falsely portrayed the availability of beds, oxygen cylinders and even home set-ups, only to be cheated out of money. 

The above examples highlight the difficulty health officials face in administering adequate healthcare. The special case of the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted how current legal frameworks failed to address misinformation and disinformation, which impedes effective policymaking. It also highlights how taking corrective measures against health-related misinformation becomes difficult since such corrective action creates an uncomfortable gap in an individual’s mind, and it is seen that people ignore accurate information that may help bridge the gap. Misinformation, coupled with the infodemic trend, also leads to false memory syndrome, whereby people fail to differentiate between authentic information and fake narratives. Simple efforts to correct misperceptions usually backfire and even strengthen initial beliefs, especially in the context of complex issues like healthcare. Policymakers thus struggle with balancing policy making and making people receptive to said policies in the backdrop of their tendencies to reject/suspect authoritative action. Examples of the same can be observed on both the domestic front and internationally. In the US, for example, the traditional healthcare system rations access to healthcare through a combination of insurance costs and options versus out-of-pocket essential expenses. While this has been a subject of debate for a long time, it hadn’t created a large scale public healthcare crisis because the incentives offered to the medical professionals and public trust in the delivery of essential services helped balance the conversation. In recent times, however, there has been a narrative shift that sensationalises the system as an issue of deliberate “denial of care,” which has led to concerns about harms to patients.

Policy Recommendations

The hindrances posed by misinformation in policymaking are further exacerbated against the backdrop of policymakers relying on social media as a method to measure public sentiment, consensus and opinions. If misinformation about an outbreak is not effectively addressed, it could hinder individuals from adopting necessary protective measures and potentially worsen the spread of the epidemic. To improve healthcare policymaking amidst the challenges posed by health misinformation, policymakers must take a multifaceted approach. This includes convening a broad coalition of central, state, local, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, and research partners to assess the impact of misinformation and develop effective preventive measures. Intergovernmental collaborations such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should be encouraged whereby doctors debunk online medical misinformation, in the backdrop of the increased reliance on online forums for medical advice. Furthermore, increasing investment in research dedicated to understanding misinformation, along with the ongoing modernization of public health communications, is essential. Enhancing the resources and technical support available to state and local public health agencies will also enable them to better address public queries and concerns, as well as counteract misinformation. Additionally, expanding efforts to build long-term resilience against misinformation through comprehensive educational programs is crucial for fostering a well-informed public capable of critically evaluating health information.

From an individual perspective, since almost half a billion people use WhatsApp it has become a platform where false health claims can spread rapidly. This has led to a rise in the use of fake health news. Viral WhatsApp messages containing fake health warnings can be dangerous, hence it is always recommended to check such messages with vigilance. This highlights the growing concern about the potential dangers of misinformation and the need for more accurate information on medical matters.

Conclusion

The proliferation of misinformation in healthcare poses significant challenges to effective policymaking and public health management. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the role of misinformation in vaccine hesitancy, fraud, and increased mortality rates. There is an urgent need for robust strategies to counteract false information and build public trust in health interventions; this includes policymakers engaging in comprehensive efforts, including intergovernmental collaboration, enhanced research, and public health communication modernization, to combat misinformation. By fostering a well-informed public through education and vigilance, we can mitigate the impact of misinformation and promote healthier communities.

References

1. van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Jin, Y. (2019), “Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source” Health Communication, 35(5), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295 
2. “Health Misinformation”, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/health-misinformation/index.html 
3. Mechanic, David, “The Managed Care Backlash: Perceptions and Rhetoric in Health Care Policy and the Potential for Health Care Reform”, Rutgers University. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751184/pdf/milq_195.pdf 
4. “Bad actors are weaponising health misinformation in India”, Financial Express, April 2024.

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-bad-actors-are-weaponising-health-misinformation-in-india-3448871/ 

5. “Role of doctors in eradicating misinformation in the medical sector.”, Times of India, 1 July 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/national-doctors-day-role-of-doctors-in-eradicating-misinformation-in-the-healthcare-sector/articleshow/111399098.cms 

‍

Executive Summary 

‍

The U.S. Department of Justice recently released nearly three million pages of documents, along with thousands of videos and photographs, related to its research into convicted offender Jeffrey Epstein. Meanwhile, a video showing a massive crowd protesting on a street is going viral on social media The video, which had earlier circulated with false claims linking it to anti-government protests in Iran, is now being shared by several users who claim that the protest took place in the United States after the release of the Epstein files. Research by CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false. The video being linked to protests in the United States following the release of the Epstein files is not real and was generated using artificial intelligence (AI).

‍

Claim:

‍

An Instagram user uploaded the viral video on February 9, 2026, with the caption: “After Epstein files released in America. All eyes on America.”

‍

• https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUjLe-XE5lA
• https://ghostarchive.org/archive/tkP6W

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the claim, we first conducted a reverse search of the viral video using Google Lens. The same video was found posted on January 10, 2026, by an Instagram account named “elnaz555,” where it was shared in the context of recent protests in Iran. The post also mentioned that the video was created using AI.

‍

‍

Based on this lead, we further analyzed a higher-quality version of the viral video using Hive Moderation, a tool used to detect AI-generated images and videos. The analysis indicated a 97.9% probability that the video was generated using artificial intelligence. The research clearly shows that the video is not authentic and has been falsely linked to protests in the United States after the release of the Epstein files.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The claim circulating on social media is false. The viral video allegedly showing protests in the United States following the release of the Epstein files is AI-generated and not related to any real event.

‍