#Factcheck-Allu Arjun visits Shiva temple after success of Pushpa 2? No, image is from 2017

Introduction 

In today's digital age, we consume a lot of information and content on social media apps, and it has become a daily part of our lives. Additionally, the algorithm of these apps is such that once you like a particular category of content or show interest in it, the algorithm starts showing you a lot of similar content. With this, the hype around becoming a content creator has also increased, and people have started making short reel videos and sharing a lot of information. There are influencers in every field, whether it's lifestyle, fitness, education, entertainment, vlogging, and now even legal advice.

The online content, reels, and viral videos by social media influencers giving legal advice can have far-reaching consequences. ‘LAW’ is a vast subject where even a single punctuation mark holds significant meaning. If it is misinterpreted or only partially explained in social media reels and short videos, it can lead to serious consequences. Laws apply based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and they can differ depending on the nature of the case or offence. This trend of ‘swipe for legal advice’ or ‘law in 30 seconds’, along with the rise of the increasing number of legal influencers, poses a serious problem in the online information landscape. It raises questions about the credibility and accuracy of such legal advice, as misinformation can mislead the masses, fuel legal confusion, and create risks.

Bar Council of India’s stance against legal misinformation on social media platforms 

The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Monday (March 17, 2025) expressed concern over the rise of self-styled legal influencers on social media, stating that many without proper credentials spread misinformation on critical legal issues. Additionally, “Incorrect or misleading interpretations of landmark judgments like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the Right to Privacy ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, and GST regulations have resulted in widespread confusion, misguided legal decisions, and undue judicial burden,” the body said. The BCI also ordered the mandatory cessation of misleading and unauthorised legal advice dissemination by non-enrolled individuals and called for the establishment of stringent vetting mechanisms for legal content on digital platforms. The BCI emphasised the need for swift removal of misleading legal information.

Conclusion

Legal misinformation on social media is a growing issue that not only disrupts public perception but also influences real-life decisions. The internet is turning complex legal discourse into a chaotic game of whispers, with influencers sometimes misquoting laws and self-proclaimed "legal experts" offering advice that wouldn't survive in a courtroom. The solution is not censorship, but counterbalance. Verified legal voices need to step up, fact-checking must be relentless, and digital literacy must evolve to keep up with the fast-moving world of misinformation. Otherwise, "legal truth" could be determined by whoever has the best engagement rate, rather than by legislation or precedent.

References:

• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/bci-warns-against-legal-misinformation-bans-influencer-promotions/article69340049.ece

‍

Introduction

The Indian healthcare sector has been transforming remarkably. This is mainly due to the development of emerging technologies such as AI and IoT. The rapid adoption of technology in healthcare delivery such as AI and IoT integration along with telemedicine, digital health solutions, and Electronic Medical Records (EMR) have enhanced the efficacy of hospitals, driving growth. The integration of AI and IoT devices in healthcare can improve patient care, health record management, and telemedicine and reshape the medical landscape as we know it. However, their implementation must be safe, with robust security and ethical safeguards in place.

The Transformative Power of AI and IoT in Revolutionising Healthcare

IoT devices for healthcare such as smartwatches, wearable patches, and ingestive sensors are equipped with sensors. These devices take physiological parameters in real-time, including heart rate, blood pressure, glucose level, etc. This can be forwarded automatically from these wearables to healthcare providers and EHR systems. Real-time patient health data enable doctors to monitor progress and intervene when needed. 

The sheer volume of data generated by IoT healthcare devices opens avenues for applying AI. AI and ML algorithms can analyse patient data for patterns that further provide diagnostic clues and predict adverse events before they occur. A combination of AI and IoT opens avenues for proactive and personalised medicine tailored to specific patient profiles. This amalgamation can be a bridge between healthcare accessibility and quality. And, especially in rural and underserved areas, it can help receive timely and effective medical consultations, significantly improving healthcare outcomes. Moreover, the integration of AI-powered chatbots and virtual health assistants is enhancing patient engagement by providing instant medical advice and appointment scheduling. 

CyberPeace Takeaway, the Challenges and the Way Forward 

Some of the main challenges associated with integrating AI and IoT in healthcare include cybersecurity due to data privacy concerns, lack of interoperability, and skill gaps in implementation. Addressing these requires enhanced measures or specific policies, such as:

• Promoting collaborations among governments, regulators, industry, and academia to foster a healthcare innovation ecosystem such as public-private partnerships and funding opportunities to drive collaborative advancements in the sector. Additionally, engaging in capacity-building programs to upskill professionals.
• Infrastructural development, including startup support for scalable AI and IoT solutions. Engaging in creating healthcare-specific cybersecurity enhancements to protect sensitive data. According to a 2024 report by Check Point Software Technologies, the Indian healthcare sector has experienced an average of 6,935 cyberattacks per week, compared to 1,821 attacks per organisation globally in 2024. 

Conclusion 

The Deloitte survey highlights that on average hospitals spend 8–10% of their IT budget on cybersecurity techniques, such as hiring professionals and acquiring tools to minimise cyber-attacks to the maximum extent. Additionally, this spending is likely to increase to 12-15 % in the next two years moving towards proactive measures for cybersecurity. 

The policy frameworks and initiatives are also carried out by the government. One of the Indian government's ways of driving innovation in AI and IoT in healthcare is through initiatives under the National Digital Health Mission (NDHM), the National Health Policy and the Digital India Initiative.

Though the challenges presented by data privacy and cyber security persist, the strong policies, public-private collaborations, capacity-building initiatives and the evolving startup ecosystem carry AI and IoT’s potential forward from the thoughtful merging of innovative health technologies, delivery models, and analytics. If the integration complexities are creatively tackled, these could profoundly improve patient outcomes while bending the healthcare cost curve. 

References

• https://www.ndtv.com/business-news/indian-healthcare-sector-faced-6-935-cyberattacks-per-week-in-last-6-months-report-5989240 
• https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/meity-nasscom-coe-collaborates-with-start-ups-to-enhance-healthcare-with-ai-iot-458739-2024-12-27 
• https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/risk/in-ra-deloitte-dsci-hospital-report-noexp.pdf ‍
• https://medium.com/@shibilahammad/the-transformative-potential-of-iot-and-ai-in-healthcare-78a8c7b4eca1

Introduction

In September 2024, the Australian government announced the  Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 ( CLA Bill 2024 hereon), to provide new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the statutory regulatory body for Australia's communications and media infrastructure, to combat online misinformation and disinformation. It proposed allowing the ACMA to hold digital platforms accountable for the “seriously harmful mis- and disinformation” being spread on their platforms and their response to it, while also balancing freedom of expression. However, the Bill was subsequently withdrawn, primarily over concerns regarding the possibility of censorship by the government. This development is reflective of the global contention on the balance between misinformation regulation and freedom of speech. 

Background and Key Features of the Bill

According to the BBC’s Global Minds Survey of 2023, nearly 73% of Australians struggled to identify fake news and AI-generated misinformation. There has been a substantial rise in misinformation on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during major events like the bushfires of 2020 and the 2022 federal elections. The government’s campaign against misinformation was launched against this background, with the launch of The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation in 2021. The main provisions of the CLA Bill, 2024 were: 

1. Core Transparency Obligations of Digital Media Platforms: Publishing current media literacy plans,  risk assessment reports, and policies or information on their approach to addressing mis- and disinformation. The ACMA would also be allowed to make additional rules regarding complaints and dispute-handling processes.
2. Information Gathering and Record-Keeping Powers: The ACMA would form rules allowing it to gather consistent information across platforms and publish it. However, it would not have been empowered to gather and publish user information except in limited circumstances.
3. Approving Codes and Making Standards: The ACMA would have powers to approve codes developed by the industry and make standards regarding reporting tools, links to authoritative information, support for fact-checking, and demonetisation of disinformation. This would make compliance mandatory for relevant sections of the industry. 
4. Parliamentary Oversight: The transparency obligations, codes approved and standards set by ACMA under the Bill would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. ACMA would be required to report to the Parliament annually. 
5. Freedom of Speech Protections: End-users would not be required to produce information for ACMA unless they are a person providing services to the platform, such as its employees or fact-checkers. Further,  it would not be allowed to call for removing content from platforms unless it involved inauthentic behavior such as bots. 
6. Penalties for Non-Compliance: ACMA would be required to employ a “graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach” to non-compliance and enforcement in the form of formal warnings, remedial directions, injunctions, or significant civil penalties as decided by the courts, subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). No criminal penalties would be imposed.

Key Concerns

• Inadequacy of Freedom of Speech Protections: The biggest contention on this Bill has been regarding the issue of possible censorship, particularly of alternative opinions that are crucial to the health of a democratic system. To protect the freedom of speech, the Bill defined mis- and disinformation, what constitutes “serious harm” (election interference, harming public health, etc.), and what would be excluded from its scope. However, reservations among the Opposition persisted due to the lack of a clear mechanism to protect divergent opinions from the purview of this Bill. 
• Efficacy of Regulatory Measures: Many argue that by allowing the digital platform industry to make its codes, this law lets it self-police. Big Tech companies have no incentive to curb misinformation effectively since their business models allow them to reap financial benefits from the rampant spread of misinformation. Unless there are financial non- or dis- incentives to curb misinformation, Big Tech is not likely to address the situation at war footing.  Thus, this law would run the risk of being toothless. Secondly, the Bill did not require platforms to report on the “prevalence of” false content which, along with other metrics,  is crucial for researchers and legislators to track the efficacy of the current misinformation-curbing practices employed by platforms.  
• Threat of Government Overreach:  The Bill sought to expand the ACMA’s compliance and enforcement powers concerning misinformation and disinformation on online communication platforms by giving it powers to form rules on information gathering, code registration, standard-making powers, and core transparency obligations. However, even though the ACMA as a regulatory authority is answerable to the Parliament, the Bill was unclear in defining limits to these powers. This raised concerns from civil society about potential government overreach in a domain filled with contextual ambiguities regarding information.

Conclusion

While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill sought to equip the ACMA with tools to hold digital platforms accountable and mitigate the harm caused by false information, its critique highlights the complexities of regulating such content without infringing on freedom of speech. Legislations and proposals regarding the matter all over the world are having to contend with this challenge. Globally, legislation and proposals addressing this issue face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for a continuous discourse at the intersection of platform accountability, regulatory restraint, and the protection of diverse viewpoints.

To regulate Big Tech effectively, governments can benefit from adopting a consultative, incremental, and cooperative approach, as exemplified by the European Union’s Digital Services Act 2023. Such a framework provides for a balanced response, fostering accountability while safeguarding democratic freedoms.

Resources

• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-misinformation-disinformation-bill.pdf 
• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation 
• https://www.mi-3.com.au/07-02-2024/over-80-australians-feel-they-may-have-fallen-fake-news-says-bbc 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/misinformation-inquiry 
• https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2024 
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-is-the-misinformation-bill-and-why-has-it-triggered-worries-about-freedom-of-speech/4n3ijebde 
• https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic#:~:text=The%20Telegraph%20Act%20allows%20authorities,preventing%20incitement%20to%20the%20commission 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/submissions/2024/11/8/submission-combatting-misinformation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation&utm_content=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation+Preview+CID_31c6d7200ed9bd2f7f6f596ba2a8b1fb&utm_source=Email%20campaign&utm_term=Read%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Law%20Centres%20submission%20to%20the%20inquiry

‍