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

Introduction

The European Union has fined the meta $ 1.3 billion for infringing the EU privacy laws by transferring the personal data of Facebook users to the United States. The EU fined Meta’s business in Ireland. As per the European Union, transferring Personal data to the US is a breach of the General data protection Regulation or European Union law on data protection and privacy.

GDPR Compliance

The terms of GDPR promise to gather users’ personal information legally and under strict conditions. And those who collect and manage personal data must protect users’ personal data from exploitation. The GDPR restricts an organisation’s capacity to transfer personal data outside the EU if the transfer is solely based on that body’s evaluation of the sufficiency of the personal data’s protection. Transfers should only be made where European authorities have determined that a third country, a territory within that third country, or an international organisation provides acceptable protection for data protection.

Violation by Meta

The punishment, announced by Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, might be one of the most significant in the five years since the European Union passed the landmark General Data Protection Regulation. According to regulators, Facebook failed to comply with a 2020 judgment by the European Union’s top court that Facebook data transferred over the Atlantic was not sufficiently safeguarded from American espionage agencies. However, whether Meta will ever need to encrypt Facebook users’ data in Europe is still being determined. Meta announced it would appeal the ruling, launching a potentially legal procedure.

Simultaneously, European Union and American officials are negotiating a new data-sharing pact that would provide legal protections for Meta and scores of other companies to continue moving information between the US and Europe. This pact could overturn much of the European Union’s Monday ruling.

Article 46(1) GDPR Has been violated by the meta, And as per the Irish privacy.  

What is required by the GDPR before transferring personal information across national boundaries?

Personal data transfers to countries outside the European Economic Area are generally permitted if these nations are regarded to provide a sufficient degree of data protection. According to Article 45 of the GDPR, the European Commission evaluates the degree of personal data protection in third countries.

The European Union judgment demonstrates how government rules are upending the borderless way data has traditionally migrated. Companies are increasingly being pressed to store data within the country where it is acquired rather than allowing it to transfer freely to data centres around the world as a result of data-protection requirements, national security laws, and other regulations.

The US internet giant had previously warned that if forced to stop using SCCs (standard contractual clauses) without a proper alternative data transfer agreement in place, it would be compelled to shut down services such as Facebook and Instagram in Europe.

What will happen next for Facebook in Europe?

The ruling includes a six-month transition period before it must halt data flows, meaning the service will continue to operate in the meantime. (More specifically, Meta has been given a five-month transition period to freeze any future transfer of personal data to the United States and a six-month deadline to terminate the unlawful processing and/or storage of European user data it has previously transferred without a legitimate legal basis. Meta has also stated that it will appeal and appears to seek a stay of execution while it pursues its legal arguments in court.

Conclusion

The GDPR places restrictions on transferring personal data outside the European Union to third-party nations or international bodies to ensure that the GDPR’s level of protection for individuals is not jeopardised. But the meta violated the European Union’s privacy laws by the user’s personal information to the US. Under the compliance of GDPR, transferring and sending personal information to users intentionally is an offence. and presently, the personal data of Facebook users has been breached by the Meta, as they shared the information with the US.

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

Misinformation is rampant all over the world and impacting people at large. In 2023, UNESCO commissioned a survey on the impact of Fake News which was conducted by IPSOS. This survey was conducted in 16 countries that are to hold national elections in 2024 with a total of 2.5 billion voters and showed how pressing the need for effective regulation had become and found that 85% of people are apprehensive about the repercussions of online disinformation or misinformation. UNESCO has introduced a plan to regulate social media platforms in light of these worries, as they have become major sources of misinformation and hate speech online. This action plan is supported by the worldwide opinion survey, highlighting the urgent need for strong actions. The action plan outlines the fundamental principles that must be respected and concrete measures to be implemented by all stakeholders associated, i.e., government, regulators, civil society and the platforms themselves. 

The Key Areas in Focus of the Action Plan

The focus area of the action plan is on the protection of the Freedom of Expression while also including access to information and other human rights in digital platform governance. The action plan works on the basic premise that the impact on human rights becomes the compass for all decision-making, at every stage and by every stakeholder. Groups of independent regulators work in close coordination as part of a wider network, to prevent digital companies from taking advantage of disparities between national regulations. Moderation of content as a feasible and effective option at the required scale, in all regions and all languages. 

The algorithms of these online platforms, particularly the social media platforms are established, but it is too often geared towards maximizing engagement rather than the reliability of information. Platforms are required to take on more initiative to educate and train users to be critical thinkers and not just hopers. Regulators and platforms are in a position to take strong measures during particularly sensitive conditions ranging from elections to crises, particularly the information overload that is taking place.

Key Principles of the Action Plan

1. Human Rights Due Diligence: Platforms are required to assess their impact on human rights, including gender and cultural dimensions, and to implement risk mitigation measures. This would ensure that the platforms are responsible for educating users about their rights.
2. Adherence to International Human Rights Standards: Platforms must align their design, content moderation, and curation with international human rights standards. This includes ensuring non-discrimination, supporting cultural diversity, and protecting human moderators.
3. Transparency and Openness: Platforms are expected to operate transparently, with clear, understandable, and auditable policies. This includes being open about the tools and algorithms used for content moderation and the results they produce.
4. User Access to Information: Platforms should provide accessible information that enables users to make informed decisions. 
5. Accountability: Platforms must be accountable to their stakeholders which would include the users and the public, which would ensure that redressal for content-related decisions is not compromised. This accountability extends to the implementation of their terms of service and content policies.

Enabling Environment for the application of the UNESCO Plan

The UNESCO Action Plan to counter misinformation has been created to create an environment where freedom of expression and access to information flourish, all while ensuring safety and security for digital platform users and non-users. This endeavour calls for collective action—societies as a whole must work together. Relevant stakeholders, from vulnerable groups to journalists and artists, enable the right to expression. 

Conclusion

The UNESCO Action Plan is a response to the dilemma that has been created due to the information overload, particularly, because the distinction between information and misinformation has been so clouded. The IPSOS survey has revealed the need for an urgency to address these challenges in the users who fear the repercussions of misinformation. 

The UNESCO action plan provides a comprehensive framework that emphasises the protection of human rights, particularly freedom of expression, while also emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, and education in the governance of digital platforms as a priority. By advocating for independent regulators and encouraging platforms to align with international human rights standards, UNESCO is setting the stage for a more responsible and ethical digital ecosystem. 

The recommendations include integrating regulators through collaborations and promoting global cooperation to harmonize regulations, expanding the Digital Literacy campaign to educate users about misinformation risks and online rights, ensuring inclusive access to diverse content in multiple languages and contexts, and monitoring and refining tech advancements and regulatory strategies as challenges evolve. To ultimately promote a true online information landscape.

Reference

• https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/online-disinformation-unesco-unveils-action-plan-regulate-social-media-platforms
• https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/11/unesco_ipsos_survey.pdf ‍
• https://dig.watch/updates/unesco-sets-out-strategy-to-tackle-misinformation-after-ipsos-survey