#FactCheck - "Viral Video Misleadingly Claims Surrender to Indian Army, Actually Shows Bangladesh Army”

Introduction

Twitter is a popular social media plate form with millions of users all around the world. Twitter’s blue tick system, which verifies the identity of high-profile accounts, has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. The platform must face backlash from its users and brands who have accused it of basis, inaccuracy, and inconsistency in its verification process. This blog post will explore the questions raised on the verification process and its impact on users and big brands.

What is Twitter’s blue trick System?

The blue tick system was introduced in 2009 to help users identify the authenticity of well-known public figures, Politicians, celebrities, sportspeople, and big brands. The Twitter blue Tick system verifies the identity of high-profile accounts to display a blue badge next to your username.

According to a survey, roughly there are 294,000 verified Twitter Accounts which means they have a blue tick badge with them and have also paid the subscription for the service, which is nearly $7.99 monthly, so think about those subscribers who have paid the amount and have also lost their blue badge won’t they feel cheated?

The Controversy

Despite its initial aim, the blue tick system has received much criticism from consumers and brands. Twitter’s irregular and non-transparent verification procedure has sparked accusations of prejudice and inaccuracy. Many Twitter users have complained that the network’s verification process is random and favours account with huge followings or celebrity status. In contrast, others have criticised the platform for certifying accounts that promote harmful or controversial content.

Furthermore, the verification mechanism has generated user confusion, as many need to understand the significance of the blue tick badge. Some users have concluded that the blue tick symbol represents a Twitter endorsement or that the account is trustworthy. This confusion has resulted in users following and engaging with verified accounts that promote misleading or inaccurate data, undermining the platform’s credibility.

How did the Blue Tick Row start in India?

On 21 May 2021, when the government asked Twitter to remove the blue badge from several profiles of high-profile Indian politicians, including the Indian National Congress Party Vice-President Mr Rahul Ghandhi.

The blue badge gives the users an authenticated identity. Many celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, popularly known as Big B, Vir Das, Prakash Raj, Virat Kohli, and Rohit Sharma, have lost their blue tick despite being verified handles.

What is the Twitter policy on blue tick?

To Twitter’s policy, blue verification badges may be removed from accounts if the account holder violates the company’s verification policy or terms of service. In such circumstances, Twitter typically notifies the account holder of the removal of the verification badge and the reason for the removal. In the instance of the “Twitter blue badge row” in India, however, it appears that Twitter did not notify the impacted politicians or their representatives before revoking their verification badges. Twitter’s lack of communication has exacerbated the controversy around the episode, with some critics accusing the company of acting arbitrarily and not following due process.

Is there a solution?

The “Twitter blue badge row” has no simple answer since it involves a complex convergence of concerns about free expression, social media policies, and government laws. However, here are some alternatives:

• Establish clear guidelines: Twitter should develop and constantly implement clear guidelines and policies for the verification process. All users, including politicians and government officials, would benefit from greater transparency and clarity.
• Increase transparency: Twitter’s decision-making process for deleting or restoring verification badges should be more open. This could include providing explicit reasons for badge removal, notifying impacted users promptly, and offering an appeals mechanism for those who believe their credentials were removed unfairly.
• Engage in constructive dialogue: Twitter should engage in constructive dialogue with government authorities and other stakeholders to address concerns about the platform’s content moderation procedures. This could contribute to a more collaborative approach to managing online content, leading to more effective and accepted policies.
• Follow local rules and regulations: Twitter should collaborate with the Indian government to ensure it conforms to local laws and regulations while maintaining freedom of expression. This could involve adopting more precise standards for handling requests for material removal or other actions from governments and other organisations.

Conclusion

To sum up, the “Twitter blue tick row” in India has highlighted the complex challenges that Social media faces daily in handling the conflicting interests of free expression, government rules, and their own content moderation procedures. While Twitter’s decision to withdraw the blue verification badges of several prominent Indian politicians garnered anger from the government and some public members, it also raised questions about the transparency and uniformity of Twitter’s verification procedure. In order to deal with this issue, Twitter must establish clear verification procedures and norms, promote transparency in its decision-making process, participate in constructive communication with stakeholders, and adhere to local laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Indian government should collaborate with social media platforms to create more effective and acceptable laws that balance the necessity for free expression and the protection of citizens’ rights. The “Twitter blue tick row” is just one example of the complex challenges that social media platforms face in managing online content, and it emphasises the need for greater collaboration among platforms, governments, and civil society organisations to develop effective solutions that protect both free expression and citizens’ rights.

Introduction

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has issued a warning to students about fake social media accounts that spread false information about the CBSE. The board has warned students not to trust the information coming from these accounts and has released a list of 30 fake accounts. The board has expressed concern that these handles are misleading students and parents by spreading fake information with the name and logo of the CBSE. The board has has also clarified that it is not responsible for the information being spread from these fake accounts.

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), a venerable institution in the realm of Indian education, has found itself ensnared in the web of cyber duplicity. Impersonation attacks, a sinister facet of cybercrime, have burgeoned, prompting the Board to adopt a vigilant stance against the proliferation of counterfeit social media handles that masquerade under its esteemed name and emblem.

The CBSE, has revealed a list of approximately 30 spurious handles that have been sowing seeds of disinformation across the social media landscape. These digital doppelgängers, cloaked in the Board's identity, have been identified and exposed. The Board's official beacon in this murky sea of falsehoods is the verified handle '@cbseindia29', a lighthouse guiding the public to the shores of authentic information.

This unfolding narrative signifies the Board's unwavering commitment to tackle the scourge of misinformation and to fortify the bulwarks safeguarding the sanctity of its official communications. By spotlighting the rampant growth of fake social media personas, the CBSE endeavors to shield the public from the detrimental effects of misleading information and to preserve the trust vested in its official channels.

CBSE Impersonator Accounts

The list of identified malefactors, parading under the CBSE banner, serves as a stark admonition to the public to exercise discernment while navigating the treacherous waters of social media platforms. The CBSE has initiated appropriate legal manoeuvres against these unauthorised entities to stymie their dissemination of fallacious narratives.

The Board has previously unfurled comprehensive details concerning the impending board examinations for both Class 10 and Class 12 in the year 2024. These academic assessments are slated to commence from February 15 to April 2, 2024, with a uniform start time of 10:30 AM (IST) across all designated dates.

The CBSE has made it unequivocally clear that there are nefarious entities lurking in the shadows of social media, masquerading in the guise of the CBSE. It has implored students and the general public not to be ensnared by the siren songs emanating from these fraudulent accounts and has also unfurled a list of these imposters. The Board's warning is a beacon of caution, illuminating the path for students as they navigate the digital expanse with the impending commencement of the CBSE Class X and XII exams.

Sounding The Alarm

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has sounded the alarm, issuing an advisory to schools, students, and their guardians about the existence of fake social media platform handles that brandish the board’s logo and mislead the academic community. The board has identified about 30 such accounts on the microblogging site 'X' (formerly known as Twitter) that misuse the CBSE logo and acronym, sowing confusion and disarray.

The board is in the process of taking appropriate action against these deceptive entities. CBSE has also stated that it bears no responsibility for any information disseminated by any other source that unlawfully appropriates its name and logo on social media platforms.

Sources reveal that these impostors post false information on various updates, including admissions and exam schedules. After receiving complaints about such accounts on 'X', the CBSE issued the advisory and has initiated action against those operating these accounts, sources said.

The Brute Nature of Impersonation

In the contemporary digital epoch, cybersecurity has ascended to a position of critical importance. It is the bulwark that ensures the sanctity of computer networks is maintained and that computer systems are not marked as prey by cyber predators. Cyberattacks are insidious stratagems executed with the intent of expropriating, manipulating, or annihilating authenticated user or organizational data. It is imperative that cyberattacks be mitigated at their roots so that users and organizations utilizing internet services can navigate the digital domain with a sense of safety and security. Knowledge about cyberattacks thus plays a pivotal role in educating cyber users about the diverse types of cyber threats and the preventive measures to counteract them.

Impersonation Attacks are a vicious form of cyberattack, characterised by the malicious intent to extract confidential information. These attacks revolve around a process where cyber attackers eschew the use of malware or bots to perpetrate their crimes, instead wielding the potent tactic of social engineering. The attacker meticulously researches and harvests information about the legitimate user through platforms such as social media and then exploits this information to impersonate or masquerade as the original, legitimate user.

The threats posed by Impersonation Attacks are particularly insidious because they demand immediate action, pressuring the victim to act without discerning between the authenticated user and the impersonated one. The very nature of an Impersonation Attack is a perilous form of cyber assault, as the original user who is impersonated holds rights to private information. These attacks can be executed by exploiting a resemblance to the original user's identity, such as email IDs. Email IDs with minute differences from the legitimate user are employed in this form of attack, setting it apart from the phishing cyber mechanism. The email addresses are so similar and close to each other that, without paying heed or attention to them, the differences can be easily overlooked. Moreover, the email addresses appear to be correct, as they generally do not contain spelling errors.

Strategies to Prevent 

To prevent Impersonation Attacks, the following strategies can be employed:

1. Proper security mechanisms help identify malicious emails and thereby filter spamming email addresses on a regular basis.
2. Double-checking sensitive information is crucial, especially when important data or funds need to be transferred. It is vital to ensure that the data is transferred to a legitimate user by cross-verifying the email address.
3. Ensuring organizational-level security is paramount. Organizations should have specific domain names assigned to them, which can help employees and users distinguish their identity from that of cyber attackers.
4. Protection of User Identity is essential. Employees must not publicly share their private identities, which can be exploited by attackers to impersonate their presence within the organization.

Conclusion 

The CBSE's struggle against the masquerade of misinformation is a reminder of the vigilance required to safeguard the legitimacy of our digital interactions. As we navigate the complex and uncharted terrain of the internet, let us arm ourselves with the knowledge and discernment necessary to unmask these digital charlatans and uphold the sanctity of truth.

References 

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/cbse-warns-against-misuse-of-its-name-by-fake-social-media-handles/articleshow/107644422.cms
• https://www.timesnownews.com/education/cbse-releases-list-of-fake-social-media-handles-asks-not-to-follow-article-107632266
• https://www.etvbharat.com/en/!bharat/cbse-public-advisory-enn24021205856

‍

Introduction

Misinformation has the potential to impact people, communities and institutions alike, and the ramifications can be far-ranging. From influencing voter behaviours and consumer choices to shaping personal beliefs and community dynamics, the information we consume in our daily lives affects every aspect of our existence. And so, when this very information is flawed or incomplete, whether accidentally or deliberately so, it has the potential to confuse and mislead people. 

‘Debunking’ is the process of exposing false information or countering inaccuracies and manipulation by presenting actual facts. The goal is to minimise the harmful effects of misinformation by informing and educating people. Debunking initiatives work hard to expose false information and cut down conspiracies, catalogue evidence of false information, clearly identify sources of misinformation vs. accurate information, and assert the truth. Debunking looks at building capacity and educating people both as a strategy and goal. 

Debunking is most effective when it comes from trusted sources, provides detailed explanations, and offers guidance and verifiable advice. Debunking is reactive in nature and it focuses on specific instances of misinformation and is closely tied to fact-checking. Debunking aims to mitigate the impact of misinformation that has already spread. As such, the approach is to contain and correct, post-occurrence. The most common method of debunking is collaboration between fact-checking groups and social media companies. When journalists or other fact-checkers identify false or misleading content, social media sites flag or label it such, so that audiences are alerted. Debunking is an essential method for reducing the impact and incidence of misinformation by providing real facts and increasing overall  accuracy of content  in the digital information ecosystem.

Role of Debunking the Misinformation 

Debunking fights against false or misleading information by correcting false claims, myths, and misinformation with evidence-based rebuttals. It combats untruths and the spread of misinformation by providing and disseminating debunked evidence to the public. Debunking by presenting evidence that contradicts misleading facts and encourages individuals to develop fact-checking habits and proactively check for authenticated sources. Debunking plays a vital role in boosting trust in credible sources by offering evidence-based corrections and enhancing the credibility of online information. By exposing falsehoods and endorsing qualities like information completeness and evidence-backed data and logic, debunking efforts help create a culture of well-informed and constructive public conversations and analytical exchanges. Effectively dispelling myths and misinformation can help create communities and societies that are more educated, resilient, and goal-oriented.

Debunking as a tailoring Strategy to counter Misinformation 

Understanding the information environment and source trustworthiness is critical for developing effective debunking techniques. Successful debunking efforts use clear messages, appealing forms, and targeted distribution to reach a wide range of netizens.  Debunking as an effective method for combating misinformation includes analysing successful efforts, using fact-checking, relying on reputable sources for corrections, and using scientific communication. Fact-checking plays a critical role in ensuring information accuracy and holding people accountable for making misleading claims. Collaborative efforts and transparent techniques can boost the credibility and efficacy of fact-checking activities and boost the legitimacy and effectiveness of debunking initiatives at a larger scale. Scientific communication is also critical for debunking myths about different topics/concerns by giving evidence-based information. Clear and understandable framing of scientific knowledge is critical for engaging broad audiences and effectively refuting misinformation. 

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

1. It is recommended that debunking initiatives must highlight core facts, emphasising what is true over what is wrong and establishing a clear contrast between the two. This is crucial as people are more likely to believe familiar information even if they learn later that it is incorrect. Debunking must provide a comprehensive explanation, filling the ‘information gap’ created by the myth. This can be done by explaining things as clearly as possible, as people may stop paying attention if they are faced with an overload of competing information. The use of visuals to illustrate core facts is an effective way to help people understand the issue and clearly tell the difference between information and misinformation.
2. Individuals can play a role in debunking misinformation on social media by highlighting inconsistencies, recommending related articles with corrections or sharing trusted sources and debunking reports in their communities. 
3. Governments and regulatory agencies can improve information openness by demanding explicit source labelling and technical measures to be implemented on platforms. This can increase confidence in information sources and equip people to practice discernment when they consume content online. Governments should also support and encourage independent fact-checking organisations that are working to disprove misinformation. Digital literacy programmes may teach the public how to critically assess information online and spot any misinformation.
4. Tech businesses may enhance algorithms for detecting and flagging misinformation, therefore reducing the propagation of misleading information. Offering options for people to report suspicious/doubtful information and misinformation can empower them and help them play an active role in identifying and rectifying inaccurate information online and foster a more responsible information environment on the platforms.
   

Conclusion

Debunking is an effective strategy to counter widespread misinformation through a combination of fact-checking, scientific evidence, factual explanations, verified facts and corrections. Debunking can play an important role in fostering a culture where people look for authenticity while consuming the information and place a high value on trusted and verified information. A collaborative strategy can increase the legitimacy and reach of debunking efforts, making them more effective in reaching larger audiences and being easy-to-understand for a wide range of demographics. In a complex and ever-evolving digital ecosystem, it is important to build information resilience both at the macro level for the ecosystem as a whole and at the micro level, with the individual consumer. Only then can we ensure a culture of mindful, responsible content creation and consumption. 

References

1. https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/nato_stratcom_coe_fact-checking_and_debunking_02-02-2021-1.pdf

‍