#FactCheck - AI Generated image of Virat Kohli falsely claims to be sand art of a child

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

Cybersecurity remains a crucial component in the modern digital era, considering the growing threat landscape caused by our increased reliance on technology and the internet. The Karnataka Government introduced a new ‘Cyber Security Policy 2024’ to address increasing cybercrimes and enhance protection measures for the State's digital infrastructure through awareness, skill development, public-private collaborations, and technology integration. Officials stated that the policy highlights various important aspects including raising awareness and providing education, developing skills, supporting the industry and start-ups, as well as forming partnerships and collaborations for enhancing capacity.

Key Highlights

• The policy consists of two components. The initial segment emphasizes creating a robust cyber security environment involving various sectors such as the public, academia, industry, start-ups, and government. The second aspect of the policy aims to enhance the cybersecurity status of the State's IT resources. Although the initial section will be accessible to the public, the second portion will be restricted to the state's IT teams and departments for their IT implementation.
• The Department of Electronics, IT, BT and S&T, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (e-Governance),and the Home Department, in collaboration with stakeholders from government and private sectors, have collectively formulated this policy. The Indian Institute of Science, the main institute for the state's K-tech Centre of Excellence for Cyber Security (CySecK), also examined the policy.
• The Department of Electronics, IT, BT and S&T, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (e-Governance),and the Home Department, in collaboration with stakeholders from government and private sectors, have collectively formulated this policy. The Indian Institute of Science, the main institute for the state's K-tech Centre of Excellence for Cyber Security (CySecK), also examined the policy.
• Approximately ₹103.87 crore will be spent over five years to implement the policy, which would be fulfilled from the budget allocated to the Department of Information Technology and Biotechnology and Science & Technology. A total of ₹23.74 crore would be allocated for offering incentives and concessions.
• The policy focuses on key pillars of building awareness and skills, promoting research and innovation, promoting industry and start-ups, partnerships and collaborations for capacity building.
• Karnataka-based undergraduate and postgraduate interns will receive a monthly stipend of INR 10,000- Rs15,000 fora maximum duration of three months under the internship program. The goal is to support 600 interns at the undergraduate level and 120 interns at the post-graduate level within the policy timeframe.
• Karnataka-based start-ups collaborating with academic institutes can receive matching grants of up to 50% of the total R&D cost for cybersecurity projects, or a maximum of ₹50 lakh.
• Reimbursement will be provided for expenses up to a maximum of INR 1 Lakh for start-ups registered with Karnataka Start-up Cell who engage CERT-In empanelled service providers from Karnataka for cyber security audit.
• The Karnataka government has partnered with Meta to raise awareness on cyber security. By reaching out to educational institutions, schools and colleges, it is piloted to provide training to 1 lakh teachers and educate 1 million children on online safety.

CyberPeace Policy Wing Outlook

The Cyber Security Policy, 2024 launched by the Karnataka government is a testament to the state government's commitment to strengthening the cyber security posture and establishing cyber resilience. By promoting and supporting research and development projects, supporting startups, and providing skill training internships, and capacity building at a larger scale, the policy will serve asa positive step in countering the growing cyber threats and establishing a peaceful digital environment for all. The partnership and collaboration with tech companies will be instrumental in implementing the capacity-building initiatives aimed at building cognitive and skill defenses while navigating the digital world. The policy will inspire other state governments in their policy initiatives for building safe and secure cyber-infrastructure in the states by implementing strategies tailored to the specific needs and demands of each state in building safe digital infrastructure and environment.

References:

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/bengaluru-news/karnataka-govt-launches-new-cyber-security-policy-amid-frequent-scams-101722598078117.html
• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/grc/karnataka-govt-launches-new-cyber-security-policy/112214121
• https://cybermithra.in/2024/08/09/karnataka-cyber-security-policy/

• https://itbtst.karnataka.gov.in/storage/pdf-files/ITBT48ADM2021EngCABINET-GO.pdf

Introduction

To every Indian’s pride, the maritime sector has seen tremendous growth under various government initiatives. Still, each step towards growth should be given due regard to security measures. Sadly, cybersecurity is still treated as a secondary requirement in various critical sectors, let alone to protect the maritime sector and its assets. Maritime cybersecurity includes the protection of digital assets and networks that are vulnerable to online threats. Without an adequate cybersecurity framework in place, the assets remain at risk from cyber threats, such as malware and scams, to more sophisticated attacks targeting critical shore-based infrastructure. Amid rising global cyber threats, the maritime sector is emerging as a potential target, underscoring the need for proactive security measures to safeguard maritime operations. In this evolving threat landscape, assuming that India's maritime domain remains unaffected would be unrealistic.

Overview of India’s Maritime Sector   

India’s potential in terms of its resources and its ever-so-great oceans. India is well endowed with its dynamic 7,500 km coastline, which anchors 12 major ports and over 200 minor ones. India is strategically positioned along the world’s busiest shipping routes, and it has the potential to rise to global prominence as a key trading hub. As of 2023, India’s share in global growth stands at a staggering 16%, and India is reportedly running its course to become the third-largest economy, which is no small feat for a country of 1.4 billion people. This growth can be attributed to various global initiatives undertaken by the government, such as “Sagarmanthan: The Great Oceans Dialogue,” laying the foundation of an insightful dialogue between the visionaries to design a landscape for the growth of the marine sector. The rationale behind solidifying a security mechanism in the maritime industry lies in the fact that 95% of the country’s trade by volume and 70% by value is handled by this sector. 

Current Cybersecurity Landscape in the Maritime Sector 

All across the globe, various countries are recognising the importance of their seas and shores, and it is promising that India is not far behind its western counterparts. India has a glorious history of seas that once whispered tales of Trade, Power, and Civilizational glory, and it shall continue to tread its path of glory by solidifying and securing its maritime digital infrastructure. The path brings together an integration of the maritime sector and advanced technologies, bringing India to a crucial juncture – one where proactive measures can help bridge the gap with global best practices. In this context, to bring together an infallible framework, it becomes pertinent to incorporate IMO’s Guidelines on maritime cyber risk management, which establish principles to assess potential threats and vulnerabilities and advocate for enhanced cyber discipline. In addition, the guidelines that are designed to encourage safety and security management practices in the cyber domain warn the authorities against procedural lapses that lead to the exploitation of vulnerabilities in either information technology or operational technology systems. 

Anchoring Security: Global Best Practices & Possible Frameworks

The Asia-Pacific region has not fallen behind the US and the European Union in realising the need to have a dedicated framework, with the growing prominence of the maritime sector and countries like Singapore, China, and Japan leading the way with their robust frameworks. They have in place various requirements that govern their maritime operations and keep in check various vulnerabilities, such as Cybersecurity Awareness Training, Cyber Incident Reporting, Data Localisation, establishing secure communications, Incident management, penalties, etc.

Every country striving towards growth and expanding its international trade and commerce must ensure that it is secure from all ends to boost international cooperation and trust. On that note, the maritime sector has to be fortified by placing the best possible practices or a framework that is inclined towards its commitment to growth. The following four measures are indispensable to this framework, and in the maritime industry, they must be adapted to the unique blend of Information Technology (IT) and Operational Technology (OT) used in ships, ports, and logistics. The following mechanisms are not exhaustive in nature but form a fundamental part of the framework:

‍

• Risk Assessment: Identifying, analysing, and ensuring that all systems that are susceptible to cyber threats are prioritized and vulnerability scans are conducted of vessel control systems and shore-based systems. The critical assets that have a larger impact on the whole system should be kept formidable in comparison to other systems that may not require the same attention.
• Access Control: Restrictions with regard to authorisation, wherein access must be restricted to verified personnel to reduce internal threats and external breaches. 
• Incident Response Planning: The nature of cyber risks is inherently dynamic in nature; there are no calls for cyber attacks or warfare techniques. Such attacks are often committed in the shadows, so as to require an action plan to respond to and to recover from cyber incidents effectively. 
• Continuous Staff Training: Regularly educating all levels of maritime personnel about cyber hygiene, threat trends, and secure practices. 

CyberPeace Suggests: Legislative & Executive Imperatives

It can be said with reasonable foresight that the Indian maritime sector is in need of a national maritime cybersecurity framework that operates in cooperation with the international framework. The national imperatives will include robust cyber hygiene requirements, real-time threat intelligence mechanisms, incident response obligations, and penalties for non-compliance. The government must strive to support Indian shipbuilders through grants or incentives to adopt cyber-resilient ship design frameworks. 

The legislative quest should be to incorporate the National Maritime Cybersecurity Framework with the well-established CERT-In guidelines and data protection principles. The one indispensable requirement set under the framework should be to mandate Cybersecurity Awareness Training to help deploy trained personnel equipped to tackle cyber threats. The rationale behind such a requirement is that there can be no “one-size-fits-all” approach to managing cybersecurity risk, which is dynamic and evolving in nature, and the trained personnel will play a key role in helping establish a customised framework. 

References

• https://pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?NoteId=153432&reg=3&lang=1 
• https://bisresearch.com/industry-report/global-maritime-cybersecurity-market.html#:~:text=Maritime%20cybersecurity%20involves%20safeguarding%20digital,and%20protection%20against%20potential%20risks. 
• https://www.shipuniverse.com/2025-maritime-cybersecurity-regulations-a-simplified-breakdown/#:~:text=Japan%3A,for%20incident%20response%20and%20recovery. 
• https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Security/Documents/MSC-FAL.1-Circ.3-Rev.2%20-%20Guidelines%20On%20Maritime%20Cyber%20Risk%20Management%20(Secretariat)%20(1).pdf 

‍