#FactCheck-Mosque fire in India? False, it's from Indonesia

Introduction

Search engines have become indispensable in our daily lives, allowing us to find information instantly by entering keywords or phrases. Using the prompt "search Google or type a URL" reflects just how seamless this journey to knowledge has become. With millions of searches conducted every second, and Google handling over 6.3 million searches per minute as of 2023 (Statista), one critical question arises: do search engines prioritise results based on user preferences and past behaviours, or are they truly unbiased?

Understanding AI Bias in Search Algorithms

AI bias is also known as machine learning bias or algorithm bias. It refers to the occurrence of biased results due to human biases that deviate from the original training data or AI algorithm which leads to distortion of outputs and creation of potentially harmful outcomes. The sources of this bias are algorithmic bias, data bias and interpretation bias which emerge from user history, geographical data, and even broader societal biases in training data. 

Common biases include excluding certain groups of people from opportunities because of AI bias. In healthcare, underrepresenting data of women or minority groups can skew predictive AI algorithms. While AI helps streamline the automation of resume scanning during a search to help identify ideal candidates, the information requested and answers screened out can result in biased outcomes due to a biased dataset or any other bias in the input data.

Case in Point: Google’s "Helpful" Results and Its Impact 

Google optimises results by analysing user interactions to determine satisfaction with specific types of content. This data-driven approach forms ‘filter bubbles’ by repeatedly displaying content that aligns with a user’s preferences, regardless of factual accuracy. While this can create a more personalised experience, it risks confining users to a limited view, excluding diverse perspectives or alternative viewpoints.

The personal and societal impacts of such biases are significant. At an individual level, filter bubbles can influence decision-making, perceptions, and even mental health. On a societal level, these biases can reinforce stereotypes, polarise opinions, and shape collective narratives. There is also a growing concern that these biases may promote misinformation or limit users’ exposure to diverse perspectives, all stemming from the inherent bias in search algorithms.

Policy Challenges and Regulatory Measures

Regulating emerging technologies like AI, especially in search engine algorithms, presents significant challenges due to their intricate, proprietary nature. Traditional regulatory frameworks struggle to keep up with them as existing laws were not designed to address the nuances of algorithm-driven platforms. Regulatory bodies are pushing for transparency and accountability in AI-powered search algorithms to counter biases and ensure fairness globally. For example, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act aims to establish a regulatory framework that will categorise AI systems based on risk and enforces strict standards for transparency, accountability, and fairness, especially for high-risk AI applications, which may include search engines. India has proposed the Digital India Act in 2023 which will define and regulate High-risk AI. 

Efforts include ethical guidelines emphasising fairness, accountability, and transparency in information prioritisation. However, a complex regulatory landscape could hinder market entrants, highlighting the need for adaptable, balanced frameworks that protect user interests without stifling innovation.

CyberPeace Insights

In a world where search engines are gateways to knowledge, ensuring unbiased, accurate, and diverse information access is crucial. True objectivity remains elusive as AI-driven algorithms tend to personalise results based on user preferences and past behaviour, often creating a biased view of the web. Filter bubbles, which reinforce individual perspectives, can obscure factual accuracy and limit exposure to diverse viewpoints. Addressing this bias requires efforts from both users and companies. Users should diversify sources and verify information, while companies should enhance transparency and regularly audit algorithms for biases. Together, these actions can promote a more equitable, accurate, and unbiased search experience for all users. 

References 

• https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241101-how-online-photos-and-videos-alter-the-way-you-think 
• https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241031-how-google-tells-you-what-you-want-to-hear
• https://www.ibm.com/topics/ai-bias#:~:text=In%20healthcare%2C%20underrepresenting%20data%20of,can%20skew%20predictive%20AI%20algorithms

‍

What is Deepfake

Deepfakes have been, a fascinating but unsettling phenomenon that is now prominent in this digital age. These incredibly convincing films have drawn attention and blended in well with our high-tech surroundings. The lifelike but completely manufactured quality of deepfake videos has become an essential component of our digital environment as we traverse the broad reaches of our digital society. While these works have an undoubtedly captivating charm, they have important ramifications. Come along as we examine the deep effects that misuse of deepfakes can have on our globalized digital culture. After many actors now business tycoon Ratan Tata has become the latest victim of deepfake. Tata called out a post from a user that used a fake interview of him in a video recommending Investments.

Case Study

The nuisance of deep fake is sparing none from actors politicians to entrepreneurs everyone is getting caught in the Trap. Soon after the actresses Rashmika Mandana, Katrina Kaif, Kajol and other actresses fell prey to the rising scenario of deepfake, a new case from the industry emerged, which took Mr. Ratan Tata on storm. Business tycoon Ratan Tata has become the latest victim of deepfake. He took to his social media sharing an image of the interview that asked people to invest money in a project in a post on Instagram. Ratan Tata called out a post from a user that used a fake interview of him in a video recommending these Investments. 

This nuisance that has been created because of the deepfake is sparing nobody from actors to politicians to entrepreneurs now everyone is getting caught in the trap the latest victim being Ratan Tata. Tech magnate Ratan Tata is the most recent victim of this deepfake phenomenon. The millionaire was seen in the video, which was posted by the Instagram user, giving his followers a once-in-a-million opportunity to "exaggerate investments risk-free."

In the stated video, Ratan Tata was seen giving everyone in India advice mentioning to the public regarding the opportunity to increase their money with no risk and a 100% guarantee. The caption of the video clip stated, "Go to the channel right now."

Tata annotated both the video and the screenshot of the caption with the word "FAKE."

Ongoing Deepfake Assaults in India

Deepfake videos continue to target celebrities, and Priyanka Chopra is also a recent victim of this unsettling trend. Priyanka's deepfake adopts a different strategy than other examples, including actresses like Rashmika Mandanna, Katrina Kaif, Kajol, and Alia Bhatt. Rather than editing her face in contentious situations, the misleading film keeps her looking the same but modifies her voice and replaces real interview quotes with made-up commercial phrases. The deceptive video shows Priyanka promoting a product and talking about her yearly salary, highlighting the worrying development of deepfake technology and its possible effects on prominent personalities.

Prevention and Detection

In order to effectively combat the growing threat posed by deepfake technology, people and institutions should place a high priority on developing critical thinking abilities, carefully examining visual and auditory cues for discrepancies, making use of tools like reverse image searches, keeping up with the latest developments in deepfake trends, and rigorously fact-check reputable media sources. Important actions to improve resistance against deepfake threats include putting in place strong security policies, integrating cutting-edge deepfake detection technologies, supporting the development of ethical AI, and encouraging candid communication and cooperation. We can all work together to effectively and mindfully manage the problems presented by deepfake technology by combining these tactics and making adjustments to the constantly changing terrain.

Conclusion

The current instance involving Ratan Tata serves as an example of how the emergence of counterfeit technology poses an imminent danger to our digital civilization. The fake video, which was posted to Instagram, showed the business tycoon giving financial advice and luring followers with low-risk investment options. Tata quickly called out the footage as "FAKE," highlighting the need for careful media consumption. The Tata incident serves as a reminder of the possible damage deepfakes can do to prominent people's reputations. The issue, in Ratan Tata's instance specifically, demands that public personalities be more mindful of the possible misuse of their virtual identities. We can all work together to strengthen our defenses against this sneaky phenomenon and maintain the trustworthiness of our internet-based culture in the face of ever-changing technological challenges by emphasizing preventive measures like strict safety regulations and the implementation of state-of-the-art deepfake detection technologies.

References

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ratan-tata-slams-deepfake-video-that-features-him-giving-risk-free-investment-advice/articleshow/105805223.cms
• https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ratan-tata-flags-deepfake-video-of-his-interview-recommending-investments-4640515
• https://www.businesstoday.in/bt-tv/short-video/viralvideo-business-tycoon-ratan-tata-falls-victim-to-deepfake-408557-2023-12-07
• https://www.livemint.com/news/india/false-ratan-tata-calls-out-a-deepfake-video-of-him-giving-investment-advice-11701926766285.html

There has been a struggle to create legal frameworks that can define where free speech ends and harmful misinformation begins, specifically in democratic societies where the right to free expression is a fundamental value.  Platforms like YouTube, Wikipedia, and Facebook have gained a huge consumer base by focusing on hosting user-generated content. This content includes anything a visitor puts on a website or social media pages. 

The legal and ethical landscape surrounding misinformation is dependent on creating a fine balance between freedom of speech and expression while protecting public interests, such as truthfulness and social stability. This blog is focused on examining the legal risks of misinformation, specifically user-generated content, and the accountability of platforms in moderating and addressing it.

The Rise of Misinformation and Platform Dynamics

Misinformation content is amplified by using algorithmic recommendations and social sharing mechanisms. The intent of spreading false information is closely interwoven with the assessment of user data to identify target groups necessary to place targeted political advertising. The disseminators of fake news have benefited from social networks to reach more people, and from the technology that enables faster distribution and can make it more difficult to distinguish fake from hard news.

Multiple challenges emerge that are unique to social media platforms regulating misinformation while balancing freedom of speech and expression and user engagement. The scale at which content is created and published, the different regulatory standards, and moderating misinformation without infringing on freedom of expression complicate moderation policies and practices.

The impacts of misinformation on social, political, and economic consequences, influencing public opinion, electoral outcomes, and market behaviours underscore the urgent  need for effective regulation, as the consequences of inaction can be profound and far-reaching.

Legal Frameworks and Evolving Accountability Standards

Safe harbour principles allow for the functioning of a free, open and borderless internet. This principle is embodied under the US Communications Decency Act and the Information Technology Act in Sections 230 and 79 respectively.  They play a pivotal role in facilitating the growth and development of the Internet. The legal framework governing misinformation around the world is still in nascent stages. Section 230 of the CDA protects platforms from legal liability relating to harmful content posted on their sites by third parties. It further allows platforms to police their sites for harmful content and protects them from liability if they choose not to.

By granting exemptions to intermediaries, these safe harbour provisions help nurture an online environment that fosters free speech and enables users to freely express themselves without arbitrary intrusions.

A shift in regulations has been observed in recent times. An example is the enactment of the Digital Services Act of 2022 in the European Union.  The Act requires companies having at least 45 million monthly users to create systems to control the spread of misinformation, hate speech and terrorist propaganda, among other things. If not followed through, they risk penalties of up to 6% of the global annual revenue or even a ban in EU countries.

Challenges and Risks for Platforms

There are multiple challenges and risks faced by platforms that surround user-generated misinformation. 

• Moderating user-generated misinformation is a big challenge, primarily because of the quantity of data in question and the speed at which it is generated. It further leads to legal liabilities, operational costs and reputational risks.   
• Platforms can face potential backlash, both in instances of over-moderation or under-moderation. It can be considered as censorship, often overburdening. It can also be considered as insufficient governance in cases where the level of moderation is not protecting the privacy rights of users. 
• Another challenge is more in the technical realm, including the  limitations of AI and algorithmic moderation in detecting nuanced misinformation. It holds out to the need for human oversight to sift through the misinformation that is created by AI-generated content.  

Policy Approaches: Tackling Misinformation through Accountability and Future Outlook

Regulatory approaches to misinformation each present distinct strengths and weaknesses. Government-led regulation establishes clear standards but may risk censorship, while self-regulation offers flexibility yet often lacks accountability. The Indian framework, including the IT Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023, aims to enhance data-sharing oversight and strengthen accountability. Establishing clear definitions of misinformation and fostering collaborative oversight involving government and independent bodies can balance platform autonomy with transparency. Additionally, promoting international collaborations and innovative AI moderation solutions is essential for effectively addressing misinformation, especially given its cross-border nature and the evolving expectations of users in today’s digital landscape.

Conclusion

A balance between protecting free speech and safeguarding public interest is needed to navigate the legal risks of user-generated misinformation poses. As digital platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia continue to host vast amounts of user content, accountability measures are essential to mitigate the harms of misinformation. Establishing clear definitions and collaborative oversight can enhance transparency and build public trust. Furthermore, embracing innovative moderation technologies and fostering international partnerships will be vital in addressing this cross-border challenge. As we advance, the commitment to creating a responsible digital environment must remain a priority to ensure the integrity of information in our increasingly interconnected world.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-digital-platform-owners-be-held-liable-for-user-generated-content/article68609693.ece
• https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-digital-platform-owners-be-held-liable-for-user-generated-content/article68609693.ece 
• https://hbr.org/2021/08/its-time-to-update-section-230 
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/information-technology/deepfakes-digital-india-act-safe-harbour-protection-information-technology-act-sajan-poovayya-19255261.htm 

‍