#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as Drone Footage of Flooded Surat, Gujarat

Introduction

Intricate and winding are the passageways of the modern digital age, a place where the reverberations of truth effortlessly blend, yet hauntingly contrast, with the echoes of falsehood. Within this complex realm, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has illuminated the darkened corners with its powerful spotlight, revealing the festering, insidious network of misinformation and disinformation that snakes through the virtual and physical worlds alike. Gravely identified by the “WEF's Global Risks Report 2024” as the most formidable and immediate threats to our collective well-being, this malignant duo—misinformation and disinformation. 

The report published with the solemn tone suitable for the prelude to such a grand international gathering as the Annual Summit in Davos, the report presents a vivid tableau of our shared global landscape—one that is dominated by the treacherous pitfalls of deceits and unverified claims. These perils, if unrecognised and unchecked by societal checks and balances, possess the force to rip apart the intricate tapestry of our liberal institutions, shaking the pillars of democracies and endangering the vulnerable fabric of social cohesion.

Election Mania 

As we find ourselves perched on the edge of a future, one where the voices of nearly three billion human beings make their mark on the annals of history—within the varied electoral processes of nations such as Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. However, the spectre of misinformation can potentially corrode the integrity of the governing entities that will emerge from these democratic processes. The warning issued by the WEF is unambiguous: we are flirting with the possibility of disorder and turmoil, where the unchecked dispersion of fabrications and lies could kindle flames of unrest, manifesting in violent protests, hate-driven crimes, civil unrest, and the scourge of terrorism.

Derived from the collective wisdom of over 1,400 experts in global risk, esteemed policymakers, and industry leaders, the report crafts a sobering depiction of our world's journey. It paints an ominous future that increasingly endows governments with formidable power—to brandish the weapon of censorship, to unilaterally declare what is deemed 'true' and what ought to be obscured or eliminated in the virtual world of sharing information. This trend signals a looming potential for wider and more comprehensive repression, hindering the freedoms traditionally associated with the Internet, journalism, and unhindered access to a panoply of information sources—vital fora for the exchange of ideas and knowledge in a myriad of countries across the globe.

Prominence of AI 

When the gaze of the report extends further over a decade-long horizon, the prominence of environmental challenges such as the erosion of biodiversity and alarming shifts in the Earth's life-support systems ascend to the pinnacle of concern. Yet, trailing closely, the digital risks continue to pulsate—perpetuated by the distortions of misinformation, the echoing falsities of disinformation, and the unpredictable repercussions stemming from the utilization and, at times, the malevolent deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). These ethereal digital entities, far from being illusory shades, are the precursors of a disintegrating world order, a stage on which regional powers move to assert and maintain their influence, instituting their own unique standards and norms.

The prophecies set forth by the WEF should not be dismissed as mere academic conjecture; they are instead a trumpet's urgent call to mobilize. With a startling 30 percent of surveyed global experts bracing for the prospect of international calamities within the mere span of the coming two years, and an even more significant portion—nearly two-thirds—envisaging such crises within the forthcoming decade, it is unmistakable that the time to confront and tackle these looming risks is now. The clarion is sounding, and the message is clear: inaction is no longer an available luxury.

Maldives and India Row

To pluck precise examples from the boundless field of misinformation, we might observe the Lakshadweep-Malé incident wherein an ordinary boat accident off the coast of Kerala was grotesquely transformed into a vessel for the far-reaching tendrils of fabricated narratives, erroneously implicating Lakshadweep in the spectacle. Similarly, the tension-laden India-Maldives diplomatic exchange becomes a harrowing testament to how strained international relations may become fertile ground for the rampant spread of misleading content. The suspension of Maldivian deputy ministers following offensive remarks, the immediate tumult that followed on social media, and the explosive proliferation of counterfeit news targeting both nations paint a stark and intricate picture of how intertwined are the threads of politics, the digital platforms of social media, and the virulent propagation of falsehoods.

Yet, these are mere fragments within the extensive and elaborate weave of misinformation that threatens to enmesh our globe. As we venture forth into this dangerous and murky topography, it becomes our collective responsibility to maintain a sense of heightened vigilance, to consistently question and verify the sources and content of the information that assails us from all directions, and to cultivate an enduring culture anchored in critical thinking and discernment. The stakes are colossal—for it is not merely truth itself that we defend, but rather the underlying tenets of our societies and the sanctity of our cherished democratic institutions.

Conclusion 

In this fraught era, marked indelibly by uncertainty and perched precariously on the cusp of numerous pivotal electoral ventures, let us refuse the role of passive bystanders to unraveling our collective reality. We must embrace our role as active participants in the relentless pursuit of truth, fortified with the stark awareness that our entwined futures rest precariously on our willingness and ability to distinguish the veritable from the spurious within the perilous lattice of falsehoods of misinformation. We must continually remind ourselves that, in the quest for a stable and just global order, the unerring discernment of fact from fiction becomes not only an act of intellectual integrity but a deed of civic and moral imperative.

References 

• https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/election-fuelled-misinformation-is-serious-global-risk-in-2024-says-wef/articleshow/106727033.cms
• https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/100124/misinformation-tops-global-risks-2024.html
• https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/fact-check-in-lakshadweep-male-row-kerala-boat-accident-becomes-vessel-for-fake-news/ar-AA1mOJqY
• https://www.boomlive.in/news/india-maldives-muizzu-pm-modi-lakshadweep-fact-check-24085
• https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/global-risks-report-2024-press-release/

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/ 

‍

Executive Summary:

A viral image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man; however, this claim is false. A thorough investigation by the Cyberpeace Research team found that the image has been digitally manipulated. The original photo, which was posted by Balmukund Acharya, a BJP MLA from Jaipur, on his official Facebook account in December 2023, he was posing with a Muslim man in his election office. The man wearing the Muslim skullcap is featured in several other photos on Acharya's Instagram account, where he expressed gratitude for the support from the Muslim community. Thus, the claimed image of a marriage between a Hindu Sadhvi and a Muslim man is digitally altered.

Claims:

An image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man. 

‍

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the posts, we reverse searched the image to find any credible sources. We found a photo posted by Balmukund Acharya Hathoj Dham on his facebook page on 6 December 2023. 

This photo is digitally altered and posted on social media to mislead. We also found several different photos with the skullcap man where he was featured.

‍

We also checked for any AI fabrication in the viral image. We checked using a detection tool named, “content@scale” AI Image detection.  This tool found the image to be 95% AI Manipulated.

‍

We also checked with another detection tool for further validation named, “isitai” image detection tool. It found the image to be 38.50% of AI content, which concludes to the fact that the image is manipulated and doesn’t support the claim made. Hence, the viral image is fake and misleading.

Conclusion:

The lack of credible source and the detection of AI manipulation in the image explains that the viral image claiming to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man is false. It has been digitally altered. The original image features BJP MLA Balmukund Acharya posing with a Muslim man, and there is no evidence of the claimed marriage.

• Claim: An image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man. 
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading