#FactCheck-Viral Video of Indian Flag Desecration is from Karachi, Pakistan, Not Tehran

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Executive Summary

‍

Ahead of the final phase of the West Bengal Assembly elections, a claim regarding Uttar Pradesh cadre IPS officer Ajay Pal Sharma began circulating widely on social media. Users claimed that Sharma was being sent to West Bengal on deputation for a period of five years. However, research conducted by CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false. Sources close to the IPS officer confirmed that no such deputation order has been issued so far and that Ajay Pal Sharma is currently posted as Additional Commissioner in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. Ajay Pal Sharma had earlier been deployed as a police observer during the West Bengal elections. During that period, a video of him warning Trinamool Congress candidate Jahangir Khan from the Falta constituency had gone viral on social media.

‍

Claim

‍

Several users on Facebook and X claimed that Ajay Pal Sharma had been transferred to West Bengal for five years under an administrative arrangement involving experienced officers from different states. One Facebook user wrote:“This decision has been taken under an administrative arrangement through which experienced officers are deployed in different states.”

• https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=818902764628152&set=a.296761956842238&type=3
• https://perma.cc/FD8Q-CF7L?type=standard

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

Our research found that the deputation claim is false. Ajay Pal Sharma is currently serving as Additional Commissioner in Prayagraj, a position he has held since 2025. Further scrutiny revealed that the claim appears to have originated from a parody account on X. On May 4, around 6 PM, the account @abdullah_0mar posted the claim regarding Sharma’s alleged five-year deputation to Bengal. However, in the comments section, the user later clarified that the post was intended as satire.

• https://x.com/abdullah_0mar/status/2051277192018203071

‍

‍

We also reviewed several news reports regarding Ajay Pal Sharma’s role during the West Bengal elections. Reports confirmed that the Election Commission had deployed him as a police observer in South 24 Parganas district during the polls. However, none of the reports mentioned any five-year transfer or deputation to West Bengal.

• https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/assembly/story/ajay-pal-sharma-up-encounter-specialist-singham-bengal-elections-2902589-2026-04-28

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral claim is false. No official order has been issued regarding IPS officer Ajay Pal Sharma’s deputation to West Bengal for five years. Sources close to the officer confirmed that he continues to serve as Additional Commissioner in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. Sharma had only been deputed as a police observer during the West Bengal Assembly elections, during which a video of him warning TMC candidate Jahangir Khan went viral online.

‍

Introduction

When a tragedy strikes, moments are fragile, people are vulnerable, emotions run high, and every second is important. In such critical situations, information becomes as crucial as food, water, shelter, and medication. As soon as any information is received, it often leads to stampedes and chaos. Alongside the tragedy, whether natural or man-made, emerges another threat: misinformation. People, desperate for answers, cling to whatever they can find.

Tragedies can take many forms. These may include natural disasters, mass accidents, terrorist activities, or other emergencies. During the 2023 earthquakes in Turkey, misinformation spread on social media claiming that the Yarseli Dam had cracked and was about to burst. People believed it and began migrating from the area. Panic followed, and search and rescue teams stopped operations in that zone. Precious hours were lost. Later, it was confirmed to be a rumour. By then, the damage was already done.

Similarly, after the recent plane crash in Ahmedabad, India, numerous rumours and WhatsApp messages spread rapidly. One message claimed to contain the investigation report on the crash of Air India flight AI-171. It was later called out by PIB and declared fake.

These examples show how misinformation can take control of already painful moments. During emergencies, when emotions are intense and fear is widespread, false information spreads faster and hits harder. Some people share it unknowingly, while others do so to gain attention or push a certain agenda. But for those already in distress, the effect is often the same. It brings ore confusion, heightens anxiety, and adds to their suffering.

‍

Understanding Disasters and the Role of Media in Crisis

Disaster can be defined as a natural or human-caused situation that causes a transformation from a usual life of society into a crisis that is far beyond its existing response capacity. It can have minimal or maximum effects, from mere disruption in daily life practices to as adverse as inability to meet basic requirements of life like food, water and shelter. Hence, the disaster is not just a sudden event. It becomes a disaster when it overwhelms a community’s ability to cope with it. 

To cope with such situations, there is an organised approach called Disaster Management.  It includes preventive measures, minimising damages and helping communities recover. Earlier, public institutions like governments used to be the main actors in disaster management, but today, with every small entity having a role, academic institutions, media outlets and even ordinary people are involved. 

Communication is an important element in disaster management. It saves lives when done correctly. People who are vulnerable need to know what’s happening, what they should do and where to seek help.  It involves risk in today’s instantaneous communication. 

Research shows that the media often fails to focus on disaster preparedness. For example, studies found that during the 2019 Istanbul earthquake, the media focused more on dramatic scenes than on educating people. Similar trends were seen during the 2023 Turkey earthquakes. Rather than helping people prepare or stay calm, much of the media coverage amplified fear and sensationalised suffering. This shows a shift from preventive, helpful reporting to reactive, emotional storytelling. In doing so, the media sometimes fails in its duty to support resilience and worse, can become a channel for spreading misinformation during already traumatic events. However, fighting misinformation is not just someone’s liability. It is penalised in the official disaster management strategy. Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 mentions that "Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with a fine."

‍

AI as a Tool in Countering Misinformation 

AI has emerged as a powerful mechanism to fight against misinformation. AI technologies like Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) are effective in spotting and classifying misinformation with up to 97% accuracy. AI flags unverified content, leading to a 24% decrease in shares and 7% drop in likes on platforms like TikTok.  Up to 95% fewer people view content on Facebook when fact-checking labels are used. Facebook AI also eliminates 86% of graphic violence, 96% of adult nudity, 98.5% of fake accounts and 99.5% of content related to terrorism. These tools help rebuild public trust in addition to limiting the dissemination of harmful content. In 2023, support for tech companies acting to combat misinformation rose to 65%, indicating a positive change in public expectations and awareness.

‍

How to Counter Misinformation

Experts should step up in such situations. Social media has allowed many so-called experts to spread fake information without any real knowledge, research, or qualification. In such conditions, real experts such as authorities, doctors, scientists, public health officials, researchers, etc., need to take charge. They can directly address the myths and false claims and stop misinformation before it spreads further and reduce confusion. 

Responsible journalism is crucial during crises. In times of panic, people look at the media for guidance. Hence, it is important to fact-check every detail before publishing. Reporting that is based on unclear tips, social media posts, or rumours can cause major harm by inciting mistrust, fear, or even dangerous behaviour. Cross-checking information, depending on reliable sources and promptly fixing errors are all components of responsible journalism. Protecting the public is more important than merely disseminating the news.

Focus on accuracy rather than speed. News spreads in a blink in today's world. Media outlets and influencers often come under pressure to publish it first.  But in tragic situations like natural disasters and disease outbreaks, rushing to come first is not as important as accuracy is, as a single piece of misinformation can spark mass-scale panic and can slow down emergency efforts and lead people to make rash decisions. Taking a little more time to check the facts ensures that the information being shared is helpful, not harmful. Accuracy may save numerous lives during tragedies. 

Misinformation spreads quickly it can only be prevented if people learn to critically evaluate what they hear and see. This entails being able to spot biased or deceptive headlines, cross-check claims and identify reliable sources.  Digital literacy is of utmost importance; it makes people less susceptible to fear-based rumours, conspiracy theories and hoaxes. 

Disaster preparedness programs should include awareness about the risks of spreading unverified information. Communities, schools and media platforms must educate people on how to respond responsibly during emergencies by staying calm, checking facts and sharing only credible updates. Spreading fake alerts or panic-inducing messages during a crisis is not only dangerous, but it can also have legal consequences. Public communication must focus on promoting trust, calm and clarity. When people understand the weight their words can carry during a crisis, they become part of the solution, not the problem.

References: 

1. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3556152 
2. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-Media-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf 
3. https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/india/fake-whatsapp-message-air-india-crash-pib-fact-check-fcwmvuyc ‍
4. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-Media-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf