#FactCheck:Old 9/11 Videos Falsely Linked to Iran’s Attack on Israel Amid Ongoing Conflict

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 

‍

Wishing one another on birthdays and other occasions, sharing messages and wisdom, debating or discussing current issues, and announcing one's opinions and announcements over WhatsApp is more or less nothing new. These all are some of the latest versions of traditional communication without which our lives seem to be an un-escaped miss. Therefore, to state the obvious, WhatsApp is the platform that offers a group of good friends (as decided by the user) to communicate over – sharing information or ideas over a digital platform.

The practice of sharing allegations, images, videos, and hyperlinks through WhatsApp groups on an indiscriminate basis is becoming more and more prevalent and naturally raises the pertinent question: When does the ordinary digital conversation become actionable?

To answer this question, we need to differentiate between what is obnoxious, what is hurtful and what is illegal. There may be overlap between them, but they are not the same thing.

1. The Legal Distinction Between Offensive Expression and Unlawful Communication

The law does not impose on the individual an obligation to communicate respectfully. Criminal liability cannot be founded upon irritation or disapproval. It must be one that is defined by law.

Where a message simply contains info that is forbidden by law, a CRIMINAL threat or libellous imputations, matters are substantially different. Take the defamation provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 356, for instance. To arrive at the conclusion that a certain commentary constitutes defamation, one must look at the nature of the imputation which is attributed, the knowledge and intention concerning the reputational injury and the statutory exception as applicable. If the recipient finds the commentary offensive, it does not necessarily mean that it is defamatory. Similarly, the protection granted to criticism or fair remark cannot be interpreted as an unrestrained license to publish harmful accusations regardless of their veracity, rationale, or sincerity.

In addition, pornographic and sexually explicit material sent electronically is governed by a separate law. The Information Technology Act, 2000, has Sections 67 and 67A that relate to the publication or distribution of pornographic or sexually explicit material, respectively. Section 67B relates to certain kinds of sexually explicit content involving minors. These provisions are not just different in wording but also in material substance.

In short, there are different regulations that regulate the publication or transmission of sexually explicit and pornographic material electronically. Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deal with the publication or transmission of such materials, while Section 67B deals with certain kinds of sexually explicit material involving children. The application of these clauses depends on content and circumstance.

2. Forwarding Is an Act, Not Merely a Gesture

The idea that a WhatsApp forward is just something that has been "shared" tends to downplay the importance of the act. Forwarding can increase the audience for a piece of content, make it easier for it to spread, and, in certain situations, even help someone commit a crime. The issue of accountability for its future dissemination is not always resolved by the fact that the original content was produced by someone else.

This is exemplified in cases of copyright infringement. The Copyright Act of 1957 protects original literary, artistic, musical and other works. While Section 63 of the Act prescribes the criminal punishment for any act committed with intent to infringe on copyrighted work or for knowingly aiding or abetting such infringement, Section 51 defines what constitutes the infringement of copyright. The simple act of sharing a link to a movie, a book, a software program or any other work protected by the Act will not always necessarily amount to 'crystal clear' criminal responsibility; an investigation into the nature of the content, rights owned, nature of behaviour of the person sharing and required law must be made. A messaged group is not something that questions or impacts the rights of copyright owners.

If a recipient sends such content without checking it, they might unintentionally aid in its spread. Depending on the relevant statutory elements and supporting documentation, it is a different matter entirely whether or not that individual faces legal obligation. However, indiscriminate sending is not a responsible practice just because there is no criminal culpability in a given situation. Even though digital communication does not in and of itself create a legal responsibility, it does create an ethical duty of care. 

3. Freedom of Speech, Intermediary Obligations and Group Administrator Liability

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for the right to freedom of speech and expression. But sub-article 19(2) provides for reasonable restrictions on this right, and these restrictions, as they have been provided, are reasonable restrictions under the following grounds, namely: – public order, decency or morality, and defamation. So, the right is not absolute.

The due diligence specifications for intermediaries are contained in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended. Read along with these are the prescribed obligations of due diligence which must be placed into the context of the intermediary versus that of the criminal wrongdoer of a user or group admin. Even a consent to a malevolent post being posted on a WhatsApp group cannot itself be deemed a general violation of the rules.

In addition, the role and liability of a group admin are matters that should be pondered upon. Merely having the power to include or exclude members from the group, without proof of being responsible for every post made by a certain participant, cannot be grounds for holding an admin responsible for any offensive post made by any of the others. In Kishor v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court considered the question of the liability of an admin for offensive posts made by another member of the group.

This finding does not mean an administrator will always be free from criminal liability. There could be a different situation if the administrator personally creates, distributes, enables or aids in publication of illegal material or even conduct that constitutes a crime. The difference is the existence of duties under the control of the administrator as opposed to duties under their own lawful conduct.

4. The Case for Responsible Digital Conduct

The law has the ability to recognise wrongful behaviour and impose a sanction, but alone it cannot ensure that all use of the medium is thoughtful, proportionate and respectful. It’s mainly the audience that has that obligation.

False allegations, unapproved copyrighted content, personal images, fake links, and content that violates the dignity and rights of another should not be part of a WhatsApp group. Admins can assist by setting out what a group's aims are, banning abuse, and reacting to something that needs reacting to. To post content, members should exercise their judgement, particularly if the content is related to another person's reputation, privacy, or finance.

The principle is quite straightforward: ease of transmission should not be mistaken for lack of responsibility. There remains a potential for illegal behaviour and rights breaches in what is essentially a private gathering. Nevertheless, it is essential to think about the details in each case and the factors of the law before asserting any legal consequences.

Think before you type. Verify before you forward. Respect before you post.

‍

Introduction

Twitter is a popular social media plate form with millions of users all around the world. Twitter’s blue tick system, which verifies the identity of high-profile accounts, has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. The platform must face backlash from its users and brands who have accused it of basis, inaccuracy, and inconsistency in its verification process. This blog post will explore the questions raised on the verification process and its impact on users and big brands.

What is Twitter’s blue trick System?

The blue tick system was introduced in 2009 to help users identify the authenticity of well-known public figures, Politicians, celebrities, sportspeople, and big brands. The Twitter blue Tick system verifies the identity of high-profile accounts to display a blue badge next to your username.

According to a survey, roughly there are 294,000 verified Twitter Accounts which means they have a blue tick badge with them and have also paid the subscription for the service, which is nearly $7.99 monthly, so think about those subscribers who have paid the amount and have also lost their blue badge won’t they feel cheated?

The Controversy

Despite its initial aim, the blue tick system has received much criticism from consumers and brands. Twitter’s irregular and non-transparent verification procedure has sparked accusations of prejudice and inaccuracy. Many Twitter users have complained that the network’s verification process is random and favours account with huge followings or celebrity status. In contrast, others have criticised the platform for certifying accounts that promote harmful or controversial content.

Furthermore, the verification mechanism has generated user confusion, as many need to understand the significance of the blue tick badge. Some users have concluded that the blue tick symbol represents a Twitter endorsement or that the account is trustworthy. This confusion has resulted in users following and engaging with verified accounts that promote misleading or inaccurate data, undermining the platform’s credibility.

How did the Blue Tick Row start in India?

On 21 May 2021, when the government asked Twitter to remove the blue badge from several profiles of high-profile Indian politicians, including the Indian National Congress Party Vice-President Mr Rahul Ghandhi.

The blue badge gives the users an authenticated identity. Many celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, popularly known as Big B, Vir Das, Prakash Raj, Virat Kohli, and Rohit Sharma, have lost their blue tick despite being verified handles.

What is the Twitter policy on blue tick?

To Twitter’s policy, blue verification badges may be removed from accounts if the account holder violates the company’s verification policy or terms of service. In such circumstances, Twitter typically notifies the account holder of the removal of the verification badge and the reason for the removal. In the instance of the “Twitter blue badge row” in India, however, it appears that Twitter did not notify the impacted politicians or their representatives before revoking their verification badges. Twitter’s lack of communication has exacerbated the controversy around the episode, with some critics accusing the company of acting arbitrarily and not following due process.

Is there a solution?

The “Twitter blue badge row” has no simple answer since it involves a complex convergence of concerns about free expression, social media policies, and government laws. However, here are some alternatives:

• Establish clear guidelines: Twitter should develop and constantly implement clear guidelines and policies for the verification process. All users, including politicians and government officials, would benefit from greater transparency and clarity.
• Increase transparency: Twitter’s decision-making process for deleting or restoring verification badges should be more open. This could include providing explicit reasons for badge removal, notifying impacted users promptly, and offering an appeals mechanism for those who believe their credentials were removed unfairly.
• Engage in constructive dialogue: Twitter should engage in constructive dialogue with government authorities and other stakeholders to address concerns about the platform’s content moderation procedures. This could contribute to a more collaborative approach to managing online content, leading to more effective and accepted policies.
• Follow local rules and regulations: Twitter should collaborate with the Indian government to ensure it conforms to local laws and regulations while maintaining freedom of expression. This could involve adopting more precise standards for handling requests for material removal or other actions from governments and other organisations.

Conclusion

To sum up, the “Twitter blue tick row” in India has highlighted the complex challenges that Social media faces daily in handling the conflicting interests of free expression, government rules, and their own content moderation procedures. While Twitter’s decision to withdraw the blue verification badges of several prominent Indian politicians garnered anger from the government and some public members, it also raised questions about the transparency and uniformity of Twitter’s verification procedure. In order to deal with this issue, Twitter must establish clear verification procedures and norms, promote transparency in its decision-making process, participate in constructive communication with stakeholders, and adhere to local laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Indian government should collaborate with social media platforms to create more effective and acceptable laws that balance the necessity for free expression and the protection of citizens’ rights. The “Twitter blue tick row” is just one example of the complex challenges that social media platforms face in managing online content, and it emphasises the need for greater collaboration among platforms, governments, and civil society organisations to develop effective solutions that protect both free expression and citizens’ rights.