#Factcheck-Viral Image of Men Riding an Elephant Next to a Tiger in Bihar is Misleading

Introduction

Since the inception of the Internet and social media platforms like Facebook, X (Twitter), Instagram, etc., the government and various other stakeholders in both foreign jurisdictions and India have looked towards the intermediaries to assume responsibility for the content floated on these platforms, and various legal provisions showcase that responsibility. For the first time in many years, these intermediaries come together to moderate the content by setting a standard for the creators and propagators of this content. The influencer marketing industry in India is at a crucial juncture, with its market value projected to exceed Rs. 3,375 crore by 2026. But every industry is coupled with its complications; like in this scenario, there is a section of content creators who fail to maintain the standard of integrity and propagate content that raises concerns of authenticity and transparency, often violating intellectual property rights (IPR) and privacy. 

As influencer marketing continues to shape digital consumption, the need for ethical and transparent content grows stronger. To address this, the India Influencer Governing Council (IIGC) has released its Code of Standards, aiming to bring accountability and structure to the fast-evolving online space.

Bringing Accountability to the Digital Fame Game

The India Influencer Governing Council (IIGC), established on 15th February, 2025, is founded with the objective to empower creators, advocate for fair policies, and promote responsible content creation. The IIGC releases the Code of Standard, not a moment too soon; it arrives just in time, a necessary safeguard before social media devolves into a chaotic marketplace where anything and everything is up for grabs. Without effective regulation, digital platforms become the marketplace for misinformation and exploitation. 

The IIGC leads the movement with clarity, stating that the Code is a significant piece that spans across 20 crucial sections governing key areas such as paid partnership disclosures, AI-generated personas, content safety, and financial compliance. 

Highlights from the Code of Standard

• The Code exhibits a technical understanding of the industry of content creation and influencer marketing. The preliminary sections advocate for accuracy, transparency, and maintaining credibility with the audience that engages with the content. Secondly, the most fundamental development is with regard to the “Paid Partnership Disclosure” included in Section 2 of the Code that mandates disclosure of any material connection, such as financial agreements or collaboration with the brand.
• Another development, which potently comes at a befitting hour, is the disclosure of “AI Influencers”, which establishes that the nature of the influencer has to be disclosed, and such influencers, whether fully virtual or partially AI-enhanced, must maintain the same standards as any human influencer. 
• The code ranges across various other aspects of influencer marketing, such as expressing unpaid “Admiration” for the brand and public criticism of the brand, being free from personal bias, honouring financial agreements, non-discrimination, and various other standards that set the stage for a safe and fair digital sphere. 
• The Code also necessitates that the platform users and the influencers handle sexual and sensitive content with sincere deliberation, and usage of such content shall be for educational and health-related contexts and must not be used against community standards. The Code includes various other standards that work towards making digital platforms safer for younger generations and impressionable minds. 

A Code Without Claws? Challenges in Enforcement 

The biggest obstacle to the effective implementation of the code is distinguishing between an honest promotion and a paid brand collaboration without any explicit mention of such an agreement. This makes influencer marketing susceptible to manipulation, and the manipulation cannot be tackled with a straitjacket formula, as it might be found in the form of exaggerated claims or omission of critical information.  

Another hurdle is the voluntary compliance of the influencers with the advertising standards. Influencer marketing is an exercise in a borderless digital cyberspace, where the influencers often disregard the dignified standards to maximise their earnings and commercial motives. 

The debate between self-regulation and government oversight is constantly churning, where experience tells us that overreliance on self-regulation has proven to be inadequate, and succinct regulatory oversight is imperative in light of social media platforms operating as a transnational commercial marketplace. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

• Introduction of a licensing framework for influencers that fall into the “highly followed” category with high engagement, who are more likely to shape the audience’s views. 
• Usage of technology to align ethical standards with influencer marketing practices, ensuring that misleading advertisements do not find a platform to deceive innocent individuals.
• Educating the audience or consumers on the internet about the ramifications of negligence and their rights in the digital marketplace. Ensuring a well-established grievance redressal mechanism via digital regulatory bodies. 
• Continuous and consistent collaboration and cooperation between influencers, brands, regulators, and consumers to establish an understanding and foster transparency and a unified objective to curb deceptive advertising practices. 

References

• https://iigc.org/code-of-standards/influencers/code-of-standards-v1-april.pdf
• https://legalonus.com/the-impact-of-influencer-marketing-on-consumer-rights-and-false-advertising/
• https://exhibit.social/news/india-influencer-governing-council-iigc-launched-to-shape-the-future-of-influencer-marketing/

‍

Introduction

‍

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fast transforming our future in the digital world, transforming healthcare, finance, education, and cybersecurity. But alongside this technology, bad actors are also weaponising it. More and more, state-sponsored cyber actors are misusing AI tools such as ChatGPT and other generative models to automate disinformation, enable cyberattacks, and speed up social engineering operations. This write-up explores why and how AI, in the form of large language models (LLMs), is being exploited in cyber operations associated with adversarial states, and the necessity for international vigilance, regulation, and AI safety guidelines.

‍

The Shift: AI as a Cyber Weapon

‍

State-sponsored threat actors are misusing tools such as ChatGPT to turbocharge their cyber arsenal.

• Phishing Campaigns using AI- Generative AI allows for highly convincing and grammatically correct phishing emails. Unlike the shoddily written scams of yesteryears, these AI-based messages are tailored according to the victim's location, language, and professional background, increasing the attack success rate considerably. Example: It has recently been reported by OpenAI and Microsoft that Russian and North Korean APTs have employed LLMs to create customised phishing baits and malware obfuscation notes.
  
  
• Malware Obfuscation and Script Generation- Big Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT may be used by cyber attackers to help write, debug, and camouflage malicious scripts. While the majority of AI instruments contain safety mechanisms to guard against abuse, threat actors often exploit "jailbreaking" to evade these protections. Once such constraints are lifted, the model can be utilised to develop polymorphic malware that alters its code composition to avoid detection. It can also be used to obfuscate PowerShell or Python scripts to render them difficult for conventional antivirus software to identify. Also, LLMs have been employed to propose techniques for backdoor installation, additional facilitating stealthy access to hijacked systems.
  
  
• Disinformation and Narrative Manipulation
  State-sponsored cyber actors are increasingly employing AI to scale up and automate disinformation operations, especially on election, protest, and geopolitical dispute days. With LLMs' assistance, these actors can create massive amounts of ersatz news stories, deepfake interview transcripts, imitation social media posts, and bogus public remarks on online forums and petitions. The localisation of content makes this strategy especially perilous, as messages are written with cultural and linguistic specificity, making them credible and more difficult to detect. The ultimate aim is to seed societal unrest, manipulate public sentiments, and erode faith in democratic institutions.

‍

Disrupting Malicious Uses of AI – OpenAI Report (June 2025) 

‍

OpenAI released a comprehensive threat intelligence report called "Disrupting Malicious Uses of AI" and the “Staying ahead of threat actors in the age of AI”, which outlined how state-affiliated actors had been testing and misusing its language models for malicious intent. The report named few advanced persistent threat (APT) groups, each attributed to particular nation-states. OpenAI highlighted that the threat actors used the models mostly for enhancing linguistic quality, generating social engineering content, and expanding operations. Significantly, the report mentioned that the tools were not utilized to produce malware, but rather to support preparatory and communicative phases of larger cyber operations.

‍

AI Jailbreaking: Dodging Safety Measures

‍

One of the largest worries is how malicious users can "jailbreak" AI models, misleading them into generating banned content using adversarial input. Some methods employed are:

• Roleplay: Simulating the AI being a professional criminal advisor
• Obfuscation: Concealing requests with code or jargon
• Language Switching: Proposing sensitive inquiries in less frequently moderated languages
• Prompt Injection: Lacing dangerous requests within innocent-appearing questions

These methods have enabled attackers to bypass moderation tools, transforming otherwise moral tools into cybercrime instruments.

‍

Conclusion

‍

As AI generations evolve and become more accessible, its application by state-sponsored cyber actors is unprecedentedly threatening global cybersecurity. The distinction between nation-state intelligence collection and cybercrime is eroding, with AI serving as a multiplier of adversarial campaigns. AI tools such as ChatGPT, which were created for benevolent purposes, can be targeted to multiply phishing, propaganda, and social engineering attacks. The cross-border governance, ethical development practices, and cyber hygiene practices need to be encouraged.  AI needs to be shaped not only by innovation but by responsibility.

‍

References

• https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2024/02/14/staying-ahead-of-threat-actors-in-the-age-of-ai/
• https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/openais-chatgpt-hit-nation-state-hackers-a-28640
• https://oecd.ai/en/incidents/2025-06-13-b5e9
• https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/security-insider/meet-the-experts/emerging-AI-tactics-in-use-by-threat-actors
• https://www.wired.com/story/youre-not-ready-for-ai-hacker-agents/
• https://www.cert-in.org.in/PDF/Digital_Threat_Report_2024.pdf
• https://cdn.openai.com/threat-intelligence-reports/5f73af09-a3a3-4a55-992e-069237681620/disrupting-malicious-uses-of-ai-june-2025.pdf

‍

Introduction

Big Tech has been pushing back against regulatory measures, particularly regarding data handling practices. X Corp (formerly Twitter) has taken a prominent stance in India. The platform has filed a petition against the Central and State governments, challenging content-blocking orders and opposing the Center’s newly launched Sahyog portal.  The X Corp has furthermore labelled the Sahyog Portal as a 'censorship portal' that enables government agencies to issue blocking orders using a standardized template.

The key regulations governing the tech space in India include the IT Act of 2000,  IT Rules 2021 and 2023 (which stress platform accountability and content moderation), and the DPDP Act 2023, which intersects with personal data governance. This petition by the X Corp raises concerns for digital freedom, platform accountability, and the evolving regulatory frameworks in India. 

Elon Musk vs Indian Government: Key Issues at Stake

The 2021 IT Rules, particularly Rule 3(1)(d) of Part II, outline intermediaries' obligations regarding ‘Content Takedowns’. Intermediaries must remove or disable access to unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government notification. Notably, the rules do not require government takedown requests to be explicitly in writing, raising concerns about potential misuse. 

X’s petition also focuses on the Sahyog Portal, a government-run platform that allows various agencies and state police to request content removal directly. They contend that the failure to comply with such orders can expose intermediaries' officers to prosecution. This has sparked controversy, with platforms like Elon Musk’s X arguing that such provisions grant the government excessive control, potentially undermining free speech and fostering undue censorship.

The broader implications include geopolitical tensions, potential business risks for big tech companies, and significant effects on India's digital economy, user engagement, and platform governance. Balancing regulatory compliance with digital rights remains a crucial challenge in this evolving landscape.

The Global Context: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

The ‘EU's Digital Services Act’ establishes a baseline 'notice and takedown' system. According to the Act, hosting providers, including online platforms, must enable third parties to notify them of illegal content, which they must promptly remove to retain their hosting defence. The DSA also mandates expedited removal processes for notifications from trusted flaggers, user suspension for those with frequent violations, and enhanced protections for minors. Additionally, hosting providers have to adhere to specific content removal obligations, including the elimination of terrorist content within one hour and deploying technology to detect known or new CSAM material and remove it.

In contrast to the EU, the US First Amendment protects speech from state interference but does not extend to private entities. Dominant digital platforms, however, significantly influence discourse by moderating content, shaping narratives, and controlling advertising markets. This dual role creates tension as these platforms balance free speech, platform safety, and profitability.

India has adopted a model closer to the EU's approach, emphasizing content moderation to curb misinformation, false narratives, and harmful content. Drawing from the EU's framework, India could establish third-party notification mechanisms, enforce clear content takedown guidelines, and implement detection measures for harmful content like terrorist material and CSAM within defined timelines. This would balance content regulation with platform accountability while aligning with global best practices.

Key Concerns and Policy Debates

As the issue stands, the main concerns that arise are:

1. The need for transparency in government orders for takedowns, the reasons and a clear framework for why they are needed and the guidelines for doing so. 
2. The need for balancing digital freedom with national security and the concerns that arise out of it for tech companies. Essentially, the role platforms play in safeguarding the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution of India. 
3. This court ruling by the Karnataka HC will have the potential to redefine the principles upon which the intermediary guidelines function under the Indian laws. 

Potential Outcomes and the Way Forward

While we wait for the Hon’ble Court’s directives and orders in response to the filed suit, while the court's decision could favour either side or lead to a negotiated resolution, the broader takeaway is the necessity of collaborative policymaking that balances governmental oversight with platform accountability. This debate underscores the pressing need for a structured and transparent regulatory framework for content moderation. Additionally, this case also highlights the importance of due process in content regulation and the need for legal clarity for tech companies operating in India. Ultimately, a consultative and principles-based approach will be key to ensuring a fair and open digital ecosystem.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/elon-musks-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations/article69352961.ece
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/elon-musk-s-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations-101742463516588.html
• https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-explainer-why-has-x-accused-govt-of-censorship-3788648/
• https://thelawreporters.com/elon-musk-s-x-sues-indian-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations ‍
• https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/digilinks/2023/february/the-eu-digital-services-act---a-new-era-for-online-harms-and-intermediary-liability