#FactCheck - Viral Claim About Anti-Trump Protests in the US Is Misleading

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

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Minister of State at the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, has emphasised the need for an open internet. He stated that no platform can deny content creators access to distribute and monetise content and that large technology companies have begun to play a significant role in the digital evolution. Chandrasekhar emphasised that the government does not want the internet or monetisation to be in the purview of just one or two companies and does not want 120 crore Indians on the internet in 2025 to be catered to by big islands on the internet.

The Voice for Open Internet 

India's Minister of State for IT, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, has stated that no technology company or social media platform can deny content creators access to distribute and monetise their content. Speaking at the Digital News Publishers Association Conference in Delhi, Chandrasekhar emphasized that the government does not want the internet or monetization of the internet to be in the hands of just one or two companies. He argued that the government does not like monopoly or duopoly and does not want 120 crore Indians on the Internet in 2025 to be catered to by big islands on the internet.

Chandrasekhar highlighted that large technology companies have begun to exert influence when it comes to the dissemination of content, which has become an area of concern for publishers and content creators. He stated that if any platform finds it necessary to block any content, they need to give reasons or grounds to the creators, stating that the content is violating norms.

As India tries to establish itself as an innovator in the technology sector, a recent corpus of Rs 1 lakh crore was announced by the government in the interim Budget of 2024-25. As big companies continue to tighten their stronghold on the sector, content moderation has become crucial. Under the IT Rules Act, 11 types of categories are unlawful under IT Act and criminal law. Platforms must ensure no user posts content that falls under these categories, take down any such content, and gateway users to either de-platforming or prosecuting. Chandrasekhar believes that the government has to protect the fundamental rights of people and emphasises legislative guardrails to ensure platforms are accountable for the correctness of the content.

Monetizing Content on the Platform

No platform can deny a content creator access to the platform to distribute and monetise it,' Chandrasekhar declared, boldly laying down a gauntlet that defies the prevailing norms. This tenet signals a nascent dawn where creators may envision reaping the rewards borne of their creative endeavours unfettered by platform restrictions.

An increasingly contentious issue that shadows this debate is the moderation of content within the digital realm. In this vast uncharted expanse, the powers that be within these monolithic platforms assume the mantle of vigilance—policing the digital avenues for transgressions against a conscribed code of conduct. Under the stipulations of India's IT Rules Act, for example, platforms are duty-bound to interdict user content that strays into territories encompassing a spectrum of 11 delineated unlawful categories. Violations span the gamut from the infringement of intellectual property rights to the propagation of misinformation—each category necessitating swift and decisive intervention. He raised the alarm against misinformation—a malignant growth fed by the fertile soils of innovation—a phenomenon wherein media reports chillingly suggest that up to half of the information circulating on the internet might be a mere fabrication, a misleading simulacrum of authenticity.

The government's stance, as expounded by Chandrasekhar, pivots on an axis of safeguarding citizens' fundamental rights, compelling digital platforms to shoulder the responsibility of arbiters of truth. 'We are a nation of over 90 crores today, a nation progressing with vigour, yet we find ourselves beset by those who wish us ill,' 

Upcoming Digital India Act

Awaiting upon the horizon, India's proposed Digital India Act (DIA), still in its embryonic stage of pre-consultation deliberation, seeks to sculpt these asymmetries into a more balanced form. Chandrasekhar hinted at the potential inclusion within the DIA of regulatory measures that would sculpt the interactions between platforms and the mosaic of content creators who inhabit them. Although specifics await the crucible of public discourse and the formalities of consultation, indications of a maturing framework are palpable.

Conclusion 

It is essential that the fable of digital transformation reverberates with the voices of individual creators, the very lifeblood propelling the vibrant heartbeat of the internet's culture. These are the voices that must echo at the centre stage of policy deliberations and legislative assembly halls; these are the visions that must guide us, and these are the rights that we must uphold. As we stand upon the precipice of a nascent digital age, the decisions we forge at this moment will cascade into the morrow and define the internet of our future. This internet must eternally stand as a bastion of freedom, of ceaseless innovation and as a realm of boundless opportunity for every soul that ventures into its infinite expanse with responsible use. 

References 

• https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-no-platform-can-deny-a-content-creator-access-to-distribute-and-monetise-content-says-mos-it-rajeev-chandrasekhar-3386388/
• https://indianexpress.com/article/india/meta-content-monetisation-social-media-it-rules-rajeev-chandrasekhar-9147334/
• https://www.medianama.com/2024/02/223-rajeev-chandrasekhar-content-creators-publishers/

‍

Introduction

MSMEs, being the cornerstone of the Indian economy, are one of the most vulnerable targets in cyberspace and no enterprise is too small to be a target for malicious actors. MSMEs hardly ever perform a cyber-risk assessment, but when they do, they may run into a number of internal problems, such as cyberattacks brought on by inadequate networking security, online fraud, ransomware assaults, etc.  Tackling cyber threats in MSMEs is critical mainly because of their high level of dependance on digital technologies and the growing sophistication of cyber attacks. Protecting them from cyber threats is essential, as a security breach can have devastating consequences, including financial loss, reputational damage, and operational disruptions.

Key Cyber Threats that MSMEs are facing

MSMEs are most vulnerable to are phishing attacks, ransomware, malware and viruses, insider threats, social engineering attacks, supply chain attacks, credential stuffing and brute force attacks and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) Attacks. Some of these attacks are described as under-

• Insider threats arise from employees or contractors who intentionally or unintentionally compromise security. It involves data theft, misuse of access privileges, or accidental data exposure. 
• Social engineering attacks involve manipulating individuals into divulging confidential information or performing actions that compromise security by pretexting, baiting, and impersonation. 
• Supply chain attacks exploit the trust in relationships between businesses and their suppliers and introduce malware, compromise data integrity, and disrupt operations.
• Credential stuffing and brute force attacks give unauthorized access to accounts and systems, leading to data breaches and financial losses.

Challenges Faced by MSMEs in Cybersecurity

The challenges faced  by MSMEs in cyber security are mainly due to limited resources and budget constraints which leads to other issues such as a lack of specialized expertise as MSMEs often lack the IT support of cyber security experts. Awareness and training are needed to mitigate poor understanding of cyber threats and their complexity in nature. Vulnerabilities in the supply chain are present as they rely on third-party vendors and partners often, introducing potential supply chain vulnerabilities. Regulatory compliance is often complex and is taken seriously only when an issue crops up but it needs special attention especially with the DPDP Act coming in. The lack of an incident response plan leads to delayed and inadequate responses to cyber incidents, increasing the impact of breaches.

Best Practices for Tackling Cyber Threats for MSMEs

To effectively tackle cyber threats, MSMEs should adopt a comprehensive approach such as:

• Implementing and enforcing strong access controls by using MFA or 2FA and password policies. Limiting employee access as role based and updating the same as and when needed.
• Regularly apply security patches and use automated patch management solutions to prevent exploitation of known vulnerabilities.
• Conduct employee training and awareness programs and promote a security-first approach for the employees and assessing employee readiness to identify improvement areas.
• Implement network security measures by using firewalls and intrusion detection systems. Using secure Wi-Fi networks via strong encryptions and changing default credentials for the router are recommended, as is segmenting networks to limit lateral movement within the network in case of a breach.
• Regular data backup ensures that in case of an attack, data loss can be recovered and made available in secure offsite locations to protect it from unauthorized access. 
• Developing an incident response plan that outlines the roles, responsibilities and procedure for responding to cyber incidents with regular drills to ensure readiness and clear communication protocols for incident reporting to regulators, stakeholders and customers.
• Implement endpoint security solutions using antivirus and anti-malware softwares. Devices should be against unauthorized access and implement mobile device management solutions enforcing security policies on employee-owned devices used for work purposes.
• Cyber insurance coverage will help in transferring financial risks in case of cyber incidents. It should have comprehensive coverage including business interruptions, data restoration, legal liabilities and incident response costs.

Recommended Cybersecurity Solutions Tailored for MSMEs

1. A Managed Security Service Provider offers outsourced cybersecurity services, including threat monitoring, incident response, and vulnerability management that may be lacking in-house.
2. Cloud-Based Security Solutions such as firewall as a service and Security Information and Event Management , provide scalable and cost-effective protection for MSMEs.
3. Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Tools detect and respond to threats on endpoints, providing real-time visibility into potential threats and automating incident response actions.
4. Security Awareness Training Platforms deliver interactive training sessions and simulations to educate employees about cybersecurity threats and best practices.

Conclusion

Addressing cyber threats in MSMEs requires a proactive and multi-layered approach that encompasses technical solutions, employee training, and strategic planning. By implementing best practices and leveraging cybersecurity solutions tailored to their specific needs, MSMEs can significantly enhance their resilience against cyber threats. As cyber threats continue to evolve, staying informed about the latest trends and adopting a culture of security awareness will be essential for MSMEs to protect their assets, reputation, and bottom line.

References:

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/security-tech/security/cyber-security-pitfalls-and-how-negligence-can-be-expensive-for-msmes/articleshow/99508822.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0112/3-ways-cyber-crime-impacts-business.aspx 
• https://www.financialexpress.com/business/sme-msme-tech-cisco-launches-new-tool-for-smbs-to-assess-their-cybersecurity-readiness-2538348/ 
• https://www.cloverinfotech.com/blog/small-businesses-big-problems-are-cyber-attacks-crushing-indias-msmes/ 

‍