MeitY Issued an Advisory Regulating AI

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 

‍

Introduction

Digitalisation presents both opportunities and challenges for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in emerging markets. Digital tools can increase business efficiency and reach but also increase exposure to misinformation, fraud, and cyber attacks. Such cyber threats can lead to financial losses, reputational damage, loss of customer trust, and other challenges hindering MSMEs' ability and desire to participate in the digital economy.

The current information dump is a major component of misinformation. Misinformation spreads or emerges from online sources, causing controversy and confusion in various fields including politics, science, medicine, and business. One obvious adverse effect of misinformation is that MSMEs might lose trust in the digital market. Misinformation can even result in the devaluation of a product, sow mistrust among customers, and negatively impact the companies’ revenue. The reach of and speed with which misinformation can spread and ruin companies’ brands, as well as the overall difficulty businesses face in seeking recourse, may discourage MSMEs from fully embracing the digital ecosystem. 

MSMEs are essential for innovation, job development, and economic growth. They contribute considerably to the GDP and account for a sizable share of enterprises. They serve as engines of economic resilience in many nations, including India. Hence, a developing economy’s prosperity and sustainability depend on the MSMEs' growth and such digital threats might hinder this process of growth. 

There are widespread incidents of misinformation on social media, and these affect brand and product promotion. MSMEs also rely on online platforms for business activities, and threats such as misinformation and other digital risks can result in reputational damage and financial losses. A company's reputation being tarnished due to inaccurate information or a product or service being incorrectly represented are just some examples and these incidents can cause MSMSs to lose clients and revenue.

In the digital era, MSMEs need to be vigilant against false information in order to preserve their brand name, clientele, and financial standing. In the interconnected world of today, these organisations must develop digital literacy and resistance against misinformation in order to succeed in the long run. Information resilience is crucial for protecting and preserving their reputation in the online market.

The Impact of Misinformation on MSMEs

Misinformation can have serious financial repercussions, such as lost sales, higher expenses, legal fees, harm to the company's reputation, diminished consumer trust, bad press, and a long-lasting unfavourable impact on image. A company's products may lose value as a result of rumours, which might affect both sales and client loyalty. 

Inaccurate information can also result in operational mistakes, which can interrupt regular corporate operations and cost the enterprise a lot of money. When inaccurate information on a product's safety causes demand to decline and stockpiling problems to rise, supply chain disruptions may occur. Misinformation can also lead to operational and reputational issues, which can cause psychological stress and anxiety at work. The peace of the workplace and general productivity may suffer as a result. For MSMEs, false information has serious repercussions that impact their capacity to operate profitably, retain employees, and maintain a sustainable business. Companies need to make investments in cybersecurity defence, legal costs, and restoring consumer confidence and brand image in order to lessen the effects of false information and ensure smooth operations.

When we refer to the financial implications caused by misinformation spread in the market, be it about the product or the enterprise, the cost is two-fold in all scenarios: there is loss of revenue and then the organisation has to contend with the costs of countering the impact of the misinformation. Stock Price Volatility is one financial consequence for publicly-traded MSMEs, as misinformation can cause stock price fluctuations. Potential investors might be discouraged due to false negative information.

Further, the reputational damage consequences of misinformation on MSMEs is also a serious concern as a loss of their reputation can have long-term damages for a carefully-cultivated brand image. 

There are also operational disruptions caused by misinformation: for instance, false product recalls can take place and supplier mistrust or false claims about supplier reliability can disrupt procurement leading to disruptions in the operations of MSMEs. 

Misinformation can negatively impact employee morale and productivity due to its physiological effects. This leads to psychological stress and workplace tensions. Staff confidence is also affected due to the misinformation about the brand. Internal operational stability is a core component of any organisation’s success. 

Misinformation: Key Risk Areas for MSMEs

1. Product and Service Misinformation

For MSMEs, misinformation about products and services poses a serious danger since it undermines their credibility and the confidence clients place in the enterprise and its products or services. Because this misleading material might mix in with everyday activities and newsfeeds, viewers may find it challenging to identify fraudulent content. For example, falsehoods and rumours about a company or its goods may travel quickly through social media, impacting the confidence and attitude of customers. Algorithms that favour sensational material have the potential to magnify disinformation, resulting in the broad distribution of erroneous information that can harm a company's brand.

2. False Customer Reviews and Testimonials

False testimonies and evaluations pose a serious risk to MSMEs. These might be abused to damage a company's brand or lead to unfair competition. False testimonials, for instance, might mislead prospective customers about the calibre or quality of a company’s offerings, while phony reviews can cause consumers to mistrust a company's goods or services. These actions frequently form a part of larger plans by rival companies or bad individuals to weaken a company's position in the market.

3. Misleading Information about Business Practices

False statements or distortions regarding a company's operations constitute misleading information about business practices. This might involve dishonest marketing, fabrications regarding the efficacy or legitimacy of goods, and inaccurate claims on a company's compliance with laws or moral principles. Such incorrect information can result in a decline in consumer confidence, harm to one's reputation, and even legal issues if consumers or rival businesses act upon it. Even before the truth is confirmed, for example, allegations of wrongdoing or criminal activity pertaining can inflict a great deal of harm, even if they are disproven later.

4. Fake News Related to Industry and Market Conditions

By skewing consumer views and company actions, fake news about market and industry circumstances can have a significant effect on MSMEs. For instance, false information about market trends, regulations, or economic situations might make consumers lose faith in particular industries or force corporations to make poor strategic decisions. The rapid dissemination of misinformation on online platforms intensifies its effects on enterprises that significantly depend on digital engagement for their operations.

Factors Contributing to the Vulnerability of MSMEs

1. Limited Resources for Verification

MSMEs have a small resource pool. Information verification is typically not a top priority for most. MSMEs usually lack the resources needed to verify the information and given their limited resources, they usually tend to deploy the same towards other, more seemingly-critical functions. They are more susceptible to misleading information because they lack the capacity to do thorough fact-checking or validate the authenticity of digital content. Technology tools, human capital, and financial resources are all in low supply but they are essential requirements for effective verification processes.

2. Inadequate Digital Literacy

Digital literacy is required for effective day-to-day operations. Fake reviews, rumours, or fake images commonly used by malicious actors can result in increased scrutiny or backlash against the targeted business. The lack of awareness combined with limited resources usually spells out a pale redressal plan on part of the affected MSME. Due to their low digital literacy in this domain, a large number of MSMEs are more susceptible to false information and other online threats. Inadequate knowledge and abilities to use digital platforms securely and effectively can result in making bad decisions and raising one's vulnerability to fraud, deception, and online scams.

3. Lack of Crisis Management Plans

MSMEs frequently function without clear-cut procedures for handling crises. They lack the strategic preparation necessary to deal with the fallout from disinformation and cyberattacks. Proactive crisis management plans usually incorporate procedures for detecting, addressing, and lessening the impact of digital harms, which are frequently absent from MSMEs.

4. High Dependence on Social Media and Online Platforms

The marketing strategy for most MSMEs is heavily reliant on social media and online platforms. While the digital-first nature of operations reduces the need for a large capital to set up in the form of stores or outlets, it also gives them a higher need to stay relevant to the trends of the online community and make their products attractive to the customer base. However, MSMEs are depending more and more on social media and other online channels for marketing, customer interaction, and company operations. These platforms are really beneficial, but they also put organisations at a higher risk of false information and online fraud. Heavy reliance on these platforms coupled with the absence of proper security measures and awareness can result in serious interruptions to operations and monetary losses.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations to Enhance Information Resilience for MSMEs

CyberPeace advocates for establishing stronger legal frameworks to protect MSMEs from misinformation. Governments should establish regulations to build trust in online business activities and mitigate fraud and misinformation risks. Mandatory training programs should be implemented to cover online safety and misinformation awareness for MSME businesses. Enhanced reporting mechanisms should be developed to address digital harm incidents promptly. Governments should establish strict penalties for deliberate inaccurate misinformation spreaders, similar to those for copyright or intellectual property violations. Community-based approaches should be encouraged to help MSMEs navigate digital challenges effectively. Donor communities and development agencies should invest in digital literacy and cybersecurity training for MSMEs, focusing on misinformation mitigation and safe online practices. Platform accountability should be increased, with social media and online platforms playing a more active role in removing content from known scam networks and responding to fraudulent activity reports. There should be investment in comprehensive digital literacy solutions for MSMEs that incorporate cyber hygiene and discernment skills to combat misinformation.

‍Conclusion

Misinformation poses a serious risk to MSME’s digital resilience, operational effectiveness, and financial stability. MSMEs are susceptible to false information because of limited technical resources, lack of crisis management strategies, and insufficient digital literacy. They are also more vulnerable to false information and online fraud because of their heavy reliance on social media and other online platforms. To address these challenges it is significant to strengthen their cyber hygiene and information resilience. Robust policy and regulatory frameworks are encouraged, promoting and mandating online safety training programmes, and improved reporting procedures, are required to overall enhance the information landscape. 

References:

1. https://www.dai.com/uploads/digital-downsides.pdf
2. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2013/3/A2006-27.pdf
3. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1946375
4. https://dai-global-digital.com/digital-downsides-the-economic-impact-of-misinformation-and-other-digital-harms-on-msmes-in-kenya-india-and-cambodia.html
5. https://www.dai.com/uploads/digital-downsides.pdf

‍

In an exciting milestone achieved by CyberPeace, an ICANN APRALO At-Large organization, in collaboration with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), has successfully deployed and made operational an L-root server instance in Ranchi, Jharkhand. This initiative marks a significant step toward enhancing the resilience, speed, and security of internet connectivity in eastern India.

Understanding the DNS hierarchy – Starting from Root

Internet users access online information through different domain names and interactions with any web browser takes place through IP (Internet Protocol) addresses. Domain Name System (DNS) functions as the internet's equivalent of Yellow Pages or the phonebook of cyberspace. When a person uses a domain name like www.cyberpeace.org to access a website, their browser communicates with the internet protocol, and DNS converts the domain name to the corresponding IP address so that web browsers may load the web pages. The function of a DNS is to convert domain names to Internet Protocol addresses. It enables the respective browsers to load the resources from the Internet.

When a user types a domain name into your browser, a DNS query works behind the scenes to find the website’s IP address. First, your device asks a DNS resolver—often provided by your ISP or a third-party service—for the address. The resolver checks its cache for a match, and if none is found, it queries a root server to locate the top-level domain (TLD) server (like .com or .org). The resolver then asks the TLD server for the Authoritative nameserver responsible for the particular domain, which provides the specific IP address. Finally, the resolver sends this address back to your device, enabling it to connect to the website’s server and load the page. The entire process happens in milliseconds, ensuring seamless browsing.

Special focus on Root Server:

A root server is a name server that directly answers queries for records in the root zone and redirects requests for more specific domains to the appropriate top-level domain (TLD) servers. Root servers are an integral part of this system, acting as the first step in resolving a domain name into its corresponding IP address. They provide the initial direction needed to locate the authoritative servers for any domain.

The DNS root zone is served by 13 unique IP addresses, supported by hundreds of redundant root servers distributed worldwide connected through Anycast Routing to manage requests efficiently. As of January 8, 2025, the global root server system consists of 1921 instances operated by 12 independent root server operators. These servers ensure the smooth functioning of the internet by managing the backbone of DNS queries.

Type of Root Server Instances:

Well, in this regard,  there are two types of root server instances that can be found– Global instance and Local instance. 

Global root server instances are the primary root servers distributed strategically around the world. Local instances, on the other hand, are replicas of these global servers deployed in specific regions to handle local DNS traffic more efficiently. In each operator's list of sites, some instances are marked as global (globe icon) and some are marked as local (flag icon). The difference is in how widely available that instance will be, because of how routing for that instance is done. Recall that the routes for an instance are announced by BGP, the inter-domain routing protocol.

For global instances, the route advertisement is permitted to spread throughout the Internet, i.e., any router on the Internet could know the path to that instance. Of course, for a particular source, the route to that instance may not be the optimal route, so some other instance could be chosen as the destination.

With a local instance, however, the route advertisement is limited to only nearby networks. For example, the instance may be visible to just one ISP, or to ISPs that connect at a particular exchange point. Sources from farther away will not be able to see and query that local instance.

Deployment in Ranchi - The Journey & Significance:

CyberPeace in Collaboration with ICANN has successfully deployed an L-root server instance in Ranchi, marking a significant milestone in enhancing regional Internet infrastructure. This deployment, part of a global network of root servers, ensures faster and more reliable DNS query resolution for the region, reducing latency and enhancing cybersecurity. 

‍
The Journey of deploying the L-Root instance in Collaboration with ICANN followed the steps-
‍

• Signing the Agreement: Finalized the L-SINGLE Hosting Agreement with ICANN to formalize the partnership.
• Procuring the Hardware: Acquired the required hardware appliance to meet technical standards for hosting the L-root server.
• Setup and Installation: Configured and installed the appliance to prepare it for seamless operation.
• Joining the Anycast Network: Integrated the server into ICANN's global Anycast network using BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) for efficient DNS traffic management.

The deployment of the L-root server in Ranchi marks a significant boost to the region’s digital ecosystem. It accelerates DNS query resolution, reducing latency and enhancing internet speed and reliability for users.

This instance strengthens cyber defenses by mitigating Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) risks and managing local traffic efficiently. It also underscores Eastern India’s advanced digital infrastructure, aligning with initiatives like Digital India to meet evolving digital demands.

By handling local queries, the L-root server eases the load on global servers, contributing to a more stable and resilient global internet.

CyberPeace’s Commitment to a Secure and resilient Cyberspace

As an organization dedicated to promoting peace, security and resilience in cyberspace, CyberPeace views this collaboration with ICANN as a significant achievement in its mission. By strengthening the internet’s backbone in eastern India, this deployment underscores our commitment to enabling a secure, accessible, and resilient digital ecosystem. 

Way forward and Roadmap for Strengthening India’s DNS Infrastructure:

The successful deployment of the L-root instance in Ranchi is a stepping stone toward bolstering India's digital ecosystem. CyberPeace aims to promote awareness about DNS infrastructure through workshops and seminars, emphasizing its critical role in a resilient digital future.

With plans to deploy more such root server instances across India, the focus is on expanding local DNS infrastructure to enhance efficiency and security. Collaborative efforts with government agencies, ISPs, and tech organizations will drive this vision forward. A robust monitoring framework will ensure optimal performance and long-term sustainability of these initiatives.

Conclusion

The deployment of the L-root server instance in Eastern India represents a monumental step toward strengthening the region’s digital foundation. As Ranchi joins the network of cities hosting root server instances, the benefits will extend not only to the local community but also to the global internet ecosystem. With this milestone, CyberPeace reaffirms its commitment to driving innovation and resilience in cyberspace, paving the way for a more connected and secure future.

‍