#FactCheck: Viral video claims Ahmedabad plane crash but actually a Hollywood Movie Clip

Introduction

The development of high-speed broadband internet in the 90s triggered a growth in online gaming, particularly in East Asian countries like South Korea and China. This culminated in the proliferation of competitive video game genres, which had otherwise existed mostly in the form of high-score and face-to-face competitions at arcades. The online competitive gaming market has only become bigger over the years, with a separate domain for professional competition, called esports. This industry is projected to reach US$4.3 billion by 2029,  driven by advancements in gaming technology, increased viewership, multi-million dollar tournaments, professional leagues, sponsorships, and advertising revenues. However, the industry is still in its infancy and struggles with fairness and integrity issues. It can draw lessons in regulation from the traditional sports market to address these challenges for uniform global growth.

The Growth of Esports

The appeal of online gaming lies in its design innovations, social connectivity, and accessibility. Its rising popularity has culminated in online gaming competitions becoming an industry, formally organised into leagues and tournaments with reward prizes reaching up to millions of dollars. Professional teams now have coaches, analysts and psychologists supporting their players. For scale, the 2024 ESports World Cup (EWS) held in Saudi Arabia had the largest combined prize pool of over US$60 million. Such tournaments can be viewed in arenas and streamed online, and by 2025, around 322.7 million people are forecast to be occasional viewers of esports events. 

According to Statista, esports revenue is expected to demonstrate an annual growth rate (CAGR 2024-2029) of 6.59%, resulting in a projected market volume of US$5.9 billion by 2029. Esports has even been recognised in traditional sporting events, debuting as a medal sport in the Asian Games 2022. In 2024, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced the Olympic Esports Games, with the inaugural event set to take place in 2025 in Saudi Arabia. Hosting esports events such as the EWS is expected to boost tourism and the host country’s local economy.

The Challenges of Esports Regulation

While the esports ecosystem provides numerous opportunities for growth and partnerships, its under-regulation presents challenges. Due to the lack of a single governing body like the IOC for the Olympics or FIFA for football to lay down centralised rules, the industry faces certain challenges, such as : 

1. Integrity issues: Esports are not immune to cheating attempts. Match-fixing, using advanced software hacks, doping (e.g., Adderall use), and the use of other illegal aids are common.  DOTA, Counter-Strike, and Overwatch tournaments are particularly susceptible to cheating scandals. 
2. Players’ Rights: The teams that contractually own professional players provide remuneration and exercise significant control over athletes, who face issues like overwork, a short-lived career, stress, the absence of collective bargaining forums, instability, etc. 
3. Fragmented National Regulations: While multiple countries have recognised esports as a sport, policies on esports governance and allied regulation vary within and across borders. For example, age restrictions and laws on gambling, taxation, labour, and advertising differ by country. This can create confusion, risks and extra costs, impacting the growth of the ecosystem. 
4. Cybersecurity Concerns: The esports industry carries substantial prize pools and has growing viewer engagement, which makes it increasingly vulnerable to Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, malware, ransomware, data breaches, phishing, and account hijacking. Tournament organisers must prioritise investments in secure network infrastructure, perform regular security audits, encrypt sensitive data, implement network monitoring, utilise API penetration testing tools, deploy intrusion detection systems, and establish comprehensive incident response and mitigation plans.

Proposals for Esports Regulation: Lessons from Traditional Sports

To address the most urgent challenges to the esports industry as outlined above,  the following interventions, drawing on the governance and regulatory frameworks of traditional sports, can be made:

1. Need for a Centralised Esports Governing Body: Unlike traditional sports, the esports landscape lacks a Global Sports Organisation (GSO) to oversee its governance. Instead, it is handled de facto by game publishers with industry interests different from those of traditional GSOs. Publishers’ primary source of revenue is not esports, which means they can adopt policies unsuitable for its growth but good for their core business. Appointing a centralised governing body with the power to balance the interests of multiple stakeholders and manage issues like unregulated gambling, athlete health, and integrity challenges is a logical next step for this industry. 
2. Gambling/Betting Regulations: While national laws on gambling/betting vary, GSOs establish uniform codes of conduct that bind participants contractually, ensuring consistent ethical standards across jurisdictions. Similar rules in esports are managed by individual publishers/ tournament organisers, leading to inconsistencies and legal grey areas. The esports ecosystem needs standardised regulation to preserve fair play codes and competitive integrity.
3. Anti-Doping Policies: There is increasing adderall abuse among young players to enhance performance with the rising monetary stakes in esports. The industry must establish a global framework similar to the  World Anti-Doping Code, which, in conjunction with eight international standards, harmonises anti-doping policies across all traditional sports and countries in the world. The esports industry should either adopt this or develop its own policy to curb stimulant abuse. 
4. Norms for Participant Health:  Professional players start around age 16 or 17 and tend to retire around 24. They may be subjected to rigorous practice hours and stringent contracts by the teams that own them. There is a need for international norm-setting by a federation overseeing the protection of underage players. Enforcement of these norms can be one of the responsibilities of a decentralised system comprising country and state-level bodies. This also ensures fair play governance.
5. Respect and Diversity:  While esports is technologically accessible, it still has room for better representation of diverse gender identities, age groups, abilities, races, ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations. Embracing greater diversity and inclusivity would benefit the industry's growth and enhance its potential to foster social connectivity through healthy competition.

Conclusion

The development of the world’s first esports island in Abu Dhabi gives impetus to the rapidly growing esports industry with millions of fans across the globe. To sustain this momentum, stakeholders must collaborate to build a strong governance framework that protects players, supports fans, and strengthens the ecosystem. By learning from traditional sports, esports can establish centralised governance, enforce standardised anti-doping measures, safeguard athlete rights, and promote inclusivity, especially for young and diverse communities. Embracing regulation and inclusivity will not only enhance esports' credibility but also position it as a powerful platform for unity, creativity, and social connection in the digital age.

Resources

• https://www.statista.com/outlook/amo/esports/worldwide
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/490480/global-esports-audience-size-viewer-type/ 
• https://asoworld.com/blog/global-esports-market-report-2024/#:~:text=A%20key%20driver%20of%20this%20growth%20is%20the%20Sponsorship%20%26%20Advertising,US%24288.9%20million%20in%202024. 
• https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2023/12/28/a-case-for-recognising-professional-esports-players-as-employees-of-their-game-publisher/ 
• https://levelblue.com/blogs/security-essentials/the-hidden-risks-of-esports-cybersecurity-on-the-virtual-battlefield 
• https://medium.com/@heyimJoost/esports-governance-and-its-failures-9ac7b3ec37ea 
• https://www.google.com/search?q=adderall+abuse+in+esports&oq=adderall+abuse+in+esports&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAtIBCDU2MDdqMGo5qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 
• https://americanaddictioncenters.org/blog/esports-adderall-abuse#:~:text=A%202020%20piece%20by%20the,it%20because%20everyone%20was%20using

‍

Introduction

In the labyrinthine corridors of the digital age, where information zips across the globe with the ferocity of a tempest, the truth often finds itself ensnared in a web of deception. It is within this intricate tapestry of reality and falsehood that we find ourselves examining two distinct yet equally compelling cases of misinformation, each a testament to the pervasive challenges that beset our interconnected world.

Case 1: The Deceptive Video: Originating in Malaysia, Misattributed to Indian Railway Development

A misleading video claiming to showcase Indian railway construction has been debunked as footage from Malaysia's East Coast Rail Link (ECRL). Fact-checking efforts by India TV traced the video's origin to Malaysia, revealing deceptive captions in Tamil and Hindi. The video was initially posted on Twitter on January 9, 2024, announcing the commencement of track-laying for Malaysia's East Coast Railway. Further investigation reveals the ECRL as a joint venture between Malaysia and China, involving the laying of tracks along the east coast, challenging assertions of Indian railway development. The ECRL's track-laying initiative, initiated in December 2023, is part of China's Belt and Road initiative, covering 665 kilometers across states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, and Selangor, with a completion target set for 2025.

The video in question, a digital chameleon, had its origins not in the bustling landscapes of India but within the verdant bounds of Malaysia. Specifically, it was a scene captured from the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project, a monumental joint venture between Malaysia and China, unfurling across 665 kilometers of Malaysian terrain. This ambitious endeavor, part of the grand Belt and Road initiative, is a testament to the collaborative spirit that defines our era, with tracks stretching from Kelantan to Selangor, and a completion horizon set for the year 2025.

The unveiling of this grand project was graced by none other than Malaysia’s King Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, in Pahang, underscoring the strategic alliance with China and the infrastructural significance of the ECRL. Yet, despite the clarity of its origins, the video found itself cloaked in a narrative of Indian development, a falsehood that spread like wildfire across the digital savannah.

Through the meticulous application of keyframe analysis and reverse image searches, the truth was laid bare. Reports from reputable sources such as the Associated Press and the Global Times, featuring the very same machinery, corroborated the video's true lineage. This revelation not only highlighted the ECRL's geopolitical import but also served as a clarion call for the critical role of fact-checking in an era where misinformation proliferates with reckless abandon.

Case 2: Kerala's Incident: Investigating Fake Narratives

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has registered 53 cases related to spreading fake narratives on social media to incite communal sentiments following the blasts at a Christian religious gathering in October 2023. Vijayan said cases have been registered against online news portals, editors, and Malayalam television channels. The state police chief has issued directions to monitor social media to stop fake news spread and take appropriate actions.

In a different corner of the world, the serene backdrop of Kerala was shattered by an event that would ripple through the fabric of its society. The Kalamassery blast, a tragic occurrence at a Christian religious gathering, claimed the lives of eight individuals and left over fifty wounded. In the wake of this calamity, a man named Dominic Martin surrendered, claiming responsibility for the heinous act.

Yet, as the investigation unfolded, a different kind of violence emerged—one that was waged not with explosives but with words. A barrage of fake narratives began to circulate through social media, igniting communal tensions and distorting the narrative of the incident. The Kerala Chief Minister, Pinarayi Vijayan, informed the Assembly that 53 cases had been registered across the state, targeting individuals and entities that had fanned the flames of discord through their digital utterances.

The Kerala police, vigilant guardians of truth, embarked on a digital crusade to quell the spread of these communally instigative messages. With a particular concentration of cases in Malappuram district, the authorities worked tirelessly to dismantle the network of fake profiles that propagated religious hatred. Social media platforms were directed to assist in this endeavor, revealing the IP addresses of the culprits and enabling the cyber cell divisions to take decisive action.

In the aftermath of the blasts, the Chief Minister and the state police chief ordered special instructions to monitor social media platforms for content that could spark communal uproar. Cyber patrolling became the order of the day, as a 20-member probe team was constituted to  deeply investigate the incident. 

Conclusion

These two cases, disparate in their nature and geography, converge on a singular point: the fragility of truth in the digital age. They highlight the imperative for vigilance and the pursuit of accuracy in a world where misinformation can spread like wildfire. As we navigate this intricate cyberscape, it is imperative to be mindful of the power of fact-checking and the importance of media literacy, for they are the light that guides us through the fog of falsehoods to the shores of veracity. 

These narratives are not merely stories of deception thwarted; they are a call to action, a reminder of our collective responsibility to safeguard the integrity of our shared reality. Let us, therefore, remain steadfast in our quest for the truth, for it is only through such diligence that we can hope to preserve the sanctity of our discourse and the cohesion of our societies.

References:

1. https://www.indiatvnews.com/fact-check/fact-check-misleading-video-claims-malaysian-rail-project-indian-truth-ecrl-india-railway-development-pm-modi-2024-01-29-914282
2. https://sahilonline.org/kalamasserry-blast-53-cases-registered-across-kerala-for-spreading-fake-news

‍

Introduction

Misinformation is, to its basic meaning, incorrect or misleading information, it may or may not include specific malicious intent and includes inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information and selective or half-truths. The main challenges in dealing with misinformation are defining and distinguishing misinformation from legitimate content. This complexity arises due to the rapid evolution and propagation which information undergoes on the digital platforms. Additionally, balancing the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression with content regulation by state actors poses a significant challenge. It requires careful consideration to avoid censorship while effectively combating harmful misinformation. 

Acknowledging the severe consequences of misinformation and the critical need to combat misinformation, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 has implemented key measures to address misinformation in India. These new provisions introduced under the new criminal laws in India penalise the deliberate creation, distribution, or publication of inaccurate information. Previously missing from the IPC, these sections offer an additional legal resource to counter the proliferation of falsehoods, complementing existing laws targeting the same issue.

Section 353 of the BNS on Statements Conducing to Public Mischief criminalises making, publishing, or circulating statements, false information, rumours, or reports, including through electronic means, with the intent or likelihood of causing various harmful outcomes. 

This section thus brings misinformation into its ambit, since misinformation has been traditionally used to induce public fear or alarm that may lead to offences against the State or public tranquillity or inciting one class or community to commit offences against another. The section also penalizes the promotion of enmity, hatred, or ill will among different religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups. 

BNS also prescribes punishment of imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both for offences under section 353. Interestingly, a longer imprisonment of up to 5 years along with a fine has been prescribed to curb such offences in places of worship or during religious ceremonies. The only exception that may be availed under this section is granted to unsuspecting individuals who, believing the misinformation to be true, spread misinformation without any ill intent. However, this exception may not be as effective in curbing misinformation, since at the outset, the offence is hard to trace and has multiple pockets for individuals to seek protection without any mechanism to verify their intent.

The BNS also aims to regulate misinformation through Section 197(1)(d) on Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration. Under this provision, anyone who makes or publishes false or misleading information, whether it is in the form of spoken words, written, by signs, in visible representations, or through electronic communication, therefore, results in jeopardising the sovereignty, unity, integrity, or security of India is liable to face punishment in the form of imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both and if it occurs in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies, the quantum of punishment is increased to imprisonment for up to five years and may include a fine. Additionally, Section 212 (a) & (b) provides against furnishing false information. If a person who is legally obligated to provide information to a public servant, knowingly or reasonably believes that the information is false, and still furnishes it, they now face a punishment of six months imprisonment or a fine up to five thousand rupees or both. However,  if the false information pertains to the commission or prevention of an offence, or the apprehension of an offender, the punishment increases to imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

Enforcement Mechanisms: CyberPeace Policy Wing Outlook

To ensure the effective enforcement of these provisions, coordination between the key stakeholders, i.e., the law enforcement agencies, digital platforms, and judicial oversight is essential. Law enforcement agencies must utilize technology such as data analytics and digital forensics for tracking and identifying the origins of false information. This technological capability is crucial for pinpointing the sources and preventing the further spread of misinformation. Simultaneously, digital platforms associated with misinformation content are required to implement robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms to detect and address the generated misleading content proactively. A supporting oversight by judicial bodies plays a critical role in ensuring that enforcement actions are conducted fairly and in line with legal standards. It helps maintain a balance between addressing misinformation and upholding fundamental rights such as freedom of speech. The success of the BNS in addressing these challenges will depend on the effective integration of these mechanisms and ongoing adaptation to the evolving digital landscape.

Resources:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf 
• https://www.foxmandal.in/changes-brought-forth-by-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023/ 
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/spreading-fake-news-could-land-people-in-jail-for-three-years-under-new-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-bill/articleshow/102669105.cms?from=mdr 

‍