#FactCheck - AI-Generated Video Falsely Claims Israeli PM Netanyahu Announced Aid for Afghanistan at PM Modi’s Request

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍

Introduction

Misinformation in India has emerged as a significant societal challenge, wielding a potent influence on public perception, political discourse, and social dynamics. A potential number of first-time voters across India identified fake news as a real problem in the nation. With the widespread adoption of digital platforms, false narratives, manipulated content, and fake news have found fertile ground to spread unchecked information and news.

In the backdrop of India being the largest market of WhatsApp users, who forward more content on chats than anywhere else, the practice of fact-checking forwarded information continues to remain low. The heavy reliance on print media, television, unreliable news channels and primarily, social media platforms acts as a catalyst since studies reveal that most Indians trust any content forwarded by family and friends. It is noted that out of all risks, misinformation and disinformation ranked the highest in India, coming before infectious diseases, illicit economic activity, inequality and labour shortages. World Economic Forum analysts, in connection with their 2024 Global Risk Report, note that “misinformation and disinformation in electoral processes could seriously destabilise the real and perceived legitimacy of newly elected governments, risking political unrest, violence and terrorism and long-term erosion of democratic processes.”

The Supreme Court of India on Misinformation

The Supreme Court of India, through various judgements, has noted the impact of misinformation on democratic processes within the country, especially during elections and voting. In 1995, while adjudicating a matter pertaining to keeping the broadcasting media under the control of the public, it noted that democracy becomes a farce when the medium of information is monopolized either by partisan central authority or by private individuals or oligarchic organizations. 

In 2003, the Court stated that “Right to participate by casting a vote at the time of election would be meaningless unless the voters are well informed about all sides of the issue in respect of which they are called upon to express their views by casting their votes. Disinformation, misinformation, non-information all equally create an uninformed citizenry which would finally make democracy a mobocracy and a farce.” It noted that elections would be a useless procedure if voters remained unaware of the antecedents of the candidates contesting elections. Thus, a necessary aspect of a voter’s duty to cast intelligent and rational votes is being well-informed. Such information forms one facet of the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a) pertaining to freedom of speech and expression. Quoting James Madison, it stated that a citizen’s right to know the true facts about their country’s administration is one of the pillars of a democratic State.

On a similar note, the Supreme Court, while discussing the disclosure of information by an election candidate, gave weightage to the High Court of Bombay‘s opinion on the matter, which opined that non-disclosure of information resulted in misinformation and disinformation, thereby influencing voters to take uninformed decisions. It stated that a voter had the elementary right to know the full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament/Assemblies.

While misinformation was discussed primarily in relation to elections, the effects of misinformation in other sectors have also been discussed from time to time. In particular, The court highlighted the World Health Organisation’s observation in 2021 while discussing the spread of COVID-19, noting that the pandemic was not only an epidemic but also an “infodemic” due to the overabundance of information on the internet, which was riddled with misinformation and disinformation. While condemning governments’ direct or indirect threats of prosecution to citizens, it noted that various citizens who relied on the internet to provide help in securing medical facilities and oxygen tanks were being targeted by alleging that the information posted by them was false and was posted to create panic, defame the administration or damage national image. It instructed authorities to cease such threats and prevent clampdown on information sharing.

More recently, in Facebook v. Delhi Legislative Assembly [(2022) 3 SCC 529], the apex court, while upholding the summons issued to Facebook by the Delhi Legislative Assembly in the aftermath of the 2020 Delhi Riots, noted that while social media enables equal and open dialogue between citizens and policymakers, it is also a tool in the where extremist views are peddled into mainstream media, thereby spreading misinformation. It noted Facebook’s role in the Mynmar, where misinformation and posts that Facebook employees missed fueled offline violence. Since Facebook is one of the most popular social media applications, the platform itself acts as a power center by hosting various opinions and voices on its forum. This directly impacts the governance of States, and some form of liability must be attached to the platform. The Supreme Court objected to Facebook taking contrary stands in various jurisdictions; while in the US, it projected itself as a publisher, which enabled it to maintain control over the material disseminated from its platform, while in India, “it has chosen to identify itself purely as a social media platform, despite its similar functions and services in the two countries.”

Conclusion

The pervasive issue of misinformation in India is a multifaceted challenge with profound implications for democratic processes, public awareness, and social harmony. The alarming statistics of fake news recognition among first-time voters, coupled with a lack of awareness regarding fact-checking organizations, underscore the urgency of addressing this issue. The Supreme Court of India has consistently recognized the detrimental impact of misinformation, particularly in elections. The judiciary has stressed the pivotal role of an informed citizenry in upholding the essence of democracy. It has emphasized the right to access accurate information as a fundamental aspect of freedom of speech and expression. As India grapples with the challenges of misinformation, the intersection of technology, media literacy and legal frameworks will be crucial in mitigating the adverse effects and fostering a more resilient and informed society.

References

• https://thewire.in/media/survey-finds-false-information-risk-highest-in-india 
• https://www.statista.com/topics/5846/fake-news-in-india/#topicOverview
• https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/digest/  
• https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/20428/20428_2020_37_1501_28386_Judgement_08-Jul-2021.pdf
• Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt, of India and Others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Another [(1995) 2 SCC 161]
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 399]
• Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant and Others [(2014) 14 SCC 162]
• Distribution of Essential Supplies & Services During Pandemic, In re [(2021) 18 SCC 201]
• Facebook v. Delhi Legislative Assembly [(2022) 3 SCC 529]

‍

Introduction 
‍

Freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to democracy and is constitutionally entrenched in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The explosion of online spaces, brought about by the digital age, in the form of social media, blogs, and messaging apps, has reinterpreted how information is authored, disseminated, and consumed. This digital revolution has galvanised individuals to engage further inclusively in public debate, but has also fanatically magnified the risks of misinformation, hate speech, and threats to public order. Against this background, the judiciary is increasingly called upon to determine the limits of free speech, primarily where state regulation seeks to infringe upon constitutional protection.
‍

Constitutional and Statutory Framework related to Freedom of Speech 
‍

The judiciary plays an integral role in balancing the fundamental right of freedom of speech with the regulation of online content, especially during the fast-paced evolution of the digital world. In India, with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, the courts bear the critical responsibility of protecting this liberty while recognising the State's legitimate interests in restricting harmful or unlawful content on a digital scale. This adjudicatory dilemma is even trickier because the said right has been held by the Supreme Court not to be an absolute one and is subject to "reasonable restrictions" as in Article 19(2), which recognises restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, and morality.  Freedom of speech, being the cornerstone of democracy in India, does have an umbrella of reasonable restrictions under which the state can regulate any form of speech that infringes upon other equally compelling societal interests. However, with the coming of the internet and other digital communication arrangements, there was a need to develop new statutory instruments, i.e., Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and Rules made thereunder, including Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021. These enactments attempt to regulate digital content, confronting issues such as hate speech, misinformation, and content that threatens public order. The judiciary's mandate is to interpret the enactments within the constitutional precincts, thus ensuring that the arbitrariness of State action is not aggravated or that the regulation is not overbroad. Judicial Landmark Decisions Affirming Balance The judiciary has played a front-ranking role in elaborating a jurisprudence protecting free speech in delineating legitimate regulation thereof. The Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015, is seminal. Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down as it was vague and overly broad, causing a chilling effect on online speech. The Court has emphasised that any limitation on speech must be precise and fall strictly within the parameters laid down in Article 19(2). While the Court recognises that harmful online content needs to be addressed, the remedy must not encroach upon free political debate, satire, and criticism vital for democracy. 

Following this, the Anuradha Bhasin case clarified the convergence of free speech and online access. The court held that the right to free speech had a vital medium in the form of the internet and that it would have to be an inevitable, proportionate shutdown, and transparent for challenge before the judiciary for any shutdown of the internet. This reaffirmed that restrictions on online speech must be rigorously tested.

Subsequent cases involve limitations on the 2021 IT Rules, whereby such government bodies can demand that “fake” or “misleading” material be taken off the internet. Courts move with circumspection, recognising the government's interest in fighting bogus information but remaining vigilant against over-regulation that can be code for pre-emptive censorship and threatening healthy discourses. 

The virtual world raises particular and deeper questions: the viral nature of online speech multiplies its impact, distributing both democratic ideas and abusive material instantaneously. The courts recognise this twinning. While pressurising the legislature and executive to formulate clearer, more precise rules, courts simultaneously act as constitutional Guardians, avoiding breaches of the right with executive excess or vague laws. There is a strain between judicial activism, which promotes constitutional rights aggressively, and the fear of judicial paternalism, courts overreaching into policy arenas. But there is a need for vigilance by the judiciary due to the rapidly changing nature of digital technologies and threats to the freedoms of democracy. The judiciary continues to give contours to free speech and online regulation. There are enforcement issues, such as ongoing abuse of struck-down provisions, such as Section 66A, that the court counters with reaffirmation of constitutional directives. The evolving jurisprudence balances on thin stilts, upholding the democratic spirit of India by securing speech on online spaces and sanctioning reasonable, transparent moderation of harmful speech.

‍

Conclusion
‍

The Indian judiciary's leadership in balancing online content regulation with the freedom of speech is central and refined. The courts continually emphasise that speech on the digital medium is highly constitutionally protected and that restrictions must be legally valid, specific, essential, and proportionate. By classical decisions and constant review of new regulating actions, courts safeguard democratic participation in the digital public domain from unmeritorious censorship. Concurrently, the courts recognize the responsibility of the state in regulating digital ills such as mis recipe and hate speech, demanding parameters that uphold constitutional freedoms and the due process. The balancing act of the judiciary continues to be fundamental in defining India's digital democracy so that free speech can thrive even as the state upholds public order and human dignity in the digital communication age.

‍