#FactCheck - Viral Video of Army Chief Upendra Dwivedi ‘Admitting’ India Betrayed Iran Is a Deepfake

Introduction

In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.

Brief Analysis of Prebunking 

Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation. 

The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it. 

The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.

There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution. 

Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions. 

Brief Analysis of Debunking 

Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem. 

Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.

Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts.  Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation.  Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.

Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis

Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions. 

1. Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions. 
2. Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
3. User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
4. Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.

Conclusion

The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential.  Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape. 

References

1. https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
2. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
3. https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
4. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/

‍

Introduction

The Australian Parliament has passed the world’s first legislation regarding a ban on social media for children under 16. This was done citing risks to the mental and physical well-being of children and the need to contain misogynistic influence on them. The debate surrounding the legislation is raging strong, as it is the first proposal of its kind and would set precedence for how other countries can assess their laws regarding children and social media platforms and their priorities. 

The Legislation

Currently trailing an age-verification system (such as biometrics or government identification), the legislation mandates a complete ban on underage children using social media, setting the age limit to 16 or above. Further, the law does not provide exemptions of any kind, be it for pre-existing accounts or parental consent. With federal elections approaching, the law seeks to address parental concerns regarding measures to protect their children from threats lurking on social media platforms. Every step in this regard is being observed with keen interest. 

The Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, emphasised that the onus of taking responsible steps toward preventing access falls on the social media platforms, absolving parents and their children of the same. Social media platforms like TikTok, X, and Meta Platforms’ Facebook and Instagram all come under the purview of this legislation.

CyberPeace Overview

The issue of a complete age-based ban raises a few concerns:

1. It is challenging to enforce digitally as children might find a way to circumnavigate such restrictions. An example would be the Cinderella Law, formally known as the Shutdown Law, which the Government of South Korea had implemented back in 2011 to reduce online gaming and promote healthy sleeping habits among children. The law mandated the prohibition of access to online gaming for children under the age of 16 between 12 A.M. to 6 A.M. However, a few drawbacks rendered it less effective over time. Children were able to use the login IDs of adults, switch to VPN, and even switch to offline gaming. In addition, parents also felt the government was infringing on the right to privacy and the restrictions were only for online PC games and did not extend to mobile phones. Consequently, the law lost relevance and was repealed in 2021.  
2. The concept of age verification inherently requires collecting more personal data and inadvertently opens up concerns regarding individual privacy. 
3. A ban is likely to reduce the pressure on tech and social media companies to develop and work on areas that would make their services a safe child-friendly environment. 

Conclusion

Social media platforms can opt for an approach that focuses on how to create a safe environment online for children as they continue to deliberate on restrictions. An example of an impactful-yet-balanced step towards the protection of children on social media while respecting privacy is the U.K.'s Age-Appropriate Design Code (UK AADC). It is the U.K.’s implementation of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), prepared by the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office), the U.K. data protection regulator. It follows a safety-by-design approach for children. As we move towards a future that is predominantly online, we must continue to strive and create a safe space for children and address issues in innovative ways.

References

1. https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/australia-proposes-ban-on-social-media-for-children-under-16-9657544/
2. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-children-be-barred-from-social-media/article68661342.ece
3. https://forumias.com/blog/debates-on-whether-children-should-be-banned-from-social-media/
4. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/why-banning-kids-from-social-media-wont-solve-the-youth-mental-health-crisis/articleshow/113328111.cms
5. https://iapp.org/news/a/childrens-privacy-laws-and-freedom-of-expression-lessons-from-the-uk-age-appropriate-design-code
6. https://www.techinasia.com/s-koreas-cinderella-law-finally-growing-up-teens-may-soon-be-able-to-play-online-after-midnight-again
7. https://wp.towson.edu/iajournal/2021/12/13/video-gaming-addiction-a-case-study-of-china-and-south-korea/
8. https://www.dailysabah.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-passes-worlds-1st-total-social-media-ban-for-children

‍

Executive Summary:

A post on X (formerly Twitter) featuring an image that has been widely shared with misleading captions, claiming to show men riding an elephant next to a tiger in Bihar, India. This post has sparked both fascination and skepticism on social media. However, our investigation has revealed that the image is misleading. It is not a recent photograph; rather, it is a photo of an incident from 2011. Always verify claims before sharing.

Claims:

An image purporting to depict men riding an elephant next to a tiger in Bihar has gone viral, implying that this astonishing event truly took place.

‍

Fact Check:

After investigation of the viral image using Reverse Image Search shows that it comes from an older video. The footage shows a tiger that was shot after it became a man-eater by forest guard. The tiger killed six people and caused panic in local villages in the Ramnagar division of Uttarakhand in January, 2011. 

‍

Before sharing viral posts, take a brief moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly and it’s far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.

Conclusion:

The claim that men rode an elephant alongside a tiger in Bihar is false. The photo presented as recent actually originates from the past and does not depict a current event. Social media users should exercise caution and verify sensational claims before sharing them.

• Claim: The video shows people casually interacting with a tiger in Bihar
• Claimed On:Instagram and X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍