© Media Watch 10 (3) 737-750, 2019

ISSN 0976-0911 E-ISSN 2249-8818

DOI: 10.15655/mw/2019/v10i3/49687

Fake News and Social Media: Indian Perspective

AASITA BALI & PRATHIK DESAI
Christ University, India

The unlimited freedom made social media platforms are susceptible to misuse,
misinformation, and thus, fake news. In the last few years, social media has
turned out to be a massive player in shaping public discourse in a democratic
space (Marda & Milan, 2018). Though there have been pressures from
policymakers on service/platform providers, nothing concrete has built up
towards accountability of the user or platform proprietors. In India, there has
been a consistent increase of social media users and instances of the misuse
of this medium. This paper seeks to examine how the propagation of fake news
has disrupted the public sphere and possible policies that can be implemented
to curb the plague of fake news. The relationship between various events of
violence reported in India media and the role of fake news in instigating chaos
are discussed in this paper. It also tries to review policies initiatives taken by
various countries, especially in Europe and possible measures which India
could take to restrict the flow of fake news.

Keywords: Facebook, fake news, India, media law, policy, social media, WhatsApp

‘Fake news’ has become a global concern since the rise of unpleasant incidents that have
challenged the users’ trust in the news, especially through social media. Lack of policy
implementation or laws which could either curb fake news or hold the perpetrator
accountable for their action have only made the situation complex and challenging.
Responsible users have time and again raised the issue to review and amend the existing
laws to meet the challenges of spreading of the fake news, but efforts by both policymakers
and civil societies have not been enough to address this lacuna within the overpowering
digital space. According to Frank, fake news has certain associated characteristics like
short life span of fake news creator, relatively faster as well as higher ‘share’ and ‘clicks’
on social media, and therefore called as syndrome which weaves labyrinth of digital
folklores of hoaxes, pranks, satires and parodies (Frank, 2015). Media is now a web of
propaganda, and there are more views than news (Bharali & Goswami, 2018). The lack of
a clear distinction, for internet users, between real and fake news is what further challenges
source credibility (Lima Quintanilha, Torres da Silva, & Lapa, 2019). India, being a massive
market for WhatsApp application, has more than 200 million active users (Singh, as cited
in Farooq, 2018) and this number is only increasing making it as one of the fastest-growing
platforms. Though the term, ‘fake news,’ had been in usage since a century at least, it
attained a renewed interest among media scholars and journalists in recent times, mainly
owing to the sudden rise of hoaxes propagated via the internet. Information dissemination
via the internet, according to scholarly works, could create two major impacts in the
society; which are “Universal access to information” and “Selective exposure” explained
Brundidge and Rice(as cited in Shafi&Ravikumar, 2018).

Correspondence to: Aasita Bali, Department of Media Studies, CHRIST (Deemed to be

University) Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 029, India

737
 Media Watch 10 (3)

A few years ago, ‘fake news’ was a rarely used term. Today, it has become one of the
greatest threats to the existing system of democracy and a hot topic for the debaters.
Shashank Atreya, a practicing lawyer, claims that fake news can be defined as ‘untrue and
unverified news.’ ‘Untrue’ refers to false facts, whereas ‘unverified’ refers to where the
facts might be true, but the numbers and characters are false (S. Atreya, personal
communication, September 25, 2018). According to Lazer et al. (2018),
Fake news is fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but
not in organizational process or intent. Fake-news outlets, in turn, lack the news
media’s editorial norms and processes for ensuring the accuracy and credibility
of the information. Fake news overlaps with other information disorders, such
as misinformation (false or misleading information) and disinformation (false
information that is purposely spread to deceive people).
Though there is no one definition for fake news, what makes it a concern is that it
allows subjective interpretations of the concept, thus making it difficult to study or allow
any policy interventions. Fake news comprises of stories, news, and hoaxes created to
misinform deliberately or deceive readers or to push a political agenda. In contemporary
times, various media propagate fake news. A newspaper in print media, television in
broadcast and internet in digital form propagate fake news. However, due to the changing
role of social media in the past few years, it has become a forerunner in the distribution of
fake news. Since social media has increasingly gained acceptance among audiences, it
plays a huge role in forming public opinions during elections. The trigger point that
catapulted fake news on social media was during the last US Presidential election.
During this election, Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, partnered
with a researcher from Cambridge University and illegally used the data of 87 million
Facebook profiles to work on Trump campaign (Chang, 2018). The purpose of collecting
personal data of millions of users was to influence ‘swing voters’ during the election
campaign. Fake news was circulated using Facebook as a platform, for which the social
media giant received uncomplimentary publicity. However, whether this fake news affected
the voting patterns to alter the election outcome is a question mark. Economists Allcott
and Gentzkow (2017), who studied the possible impact of fake news on voting patterns
during the 2016 US Presidential election, concluded that fake news on social media was
not as influential as it is believed to be. They further suggested that with television
remaining the dominant source of political news and information, for fake news to have
changed the outcome of the election, a single fake article would need to have had the same
persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads.
In their study, ‘Fake News: Credibility, Cultivation Syndrome and the New Age Media,
’Bharali and Goswami (2018) discuss framing as a strategy in story construction and thus
reasons why it is important to filter messages to maintain credibility, accountability, and
authenticity of journalism. The authors explained how social media plays the role of a
grapevine in effecting a series of reactions from the users on social media. ‘Trends in the
Spread of Fake News in Mass Media’ argument by Berduygina, Vladimirova, and Chernyaeva
(2019) discuss how emotional triggers often are the cause for spreading/forwarding of
message or fake news. The authors examine issues of changing public trust in various
news media as sources of information; structures the sources of misinformation and
identifies the major motives behind them, and discusses positive and negative outcomes
of posting fake news. Gowrah Farooq (2018), in ‘Politics of Fake News: How WhatsApp
Became a Potent Propaganda Tool in India’, discusses how internet and applications have
not just made production and dissemination of media easier but have also made distribution
of fake news possible among masses and suggest review of the existing laws to match the
technological advancements.
738
Bali & Desai

Thus while various studies have shown that there is a need to review the policies
and find an alternative, they lack the perspective of various existing policies in India and
outside, which this paper attempts to probe.

Social Media as a Public Sphere

The model, in which the social media functions, is highly responsible for how the information
on social media affects its audience. Over the years, social media has emerged as a platform
where anyone from any place can post absolutely anything at any given point in time. It
primarily works on the number of clicks which works as a catalyst in spreading personalized
ads which can manipulate and shape public discourse. This model allows a platform to
launder one’s propaganda in a very subtle way which the audience hardly realize. The
leverage over the audience has enabled false information to spread much more rapidly
than accurate information. Research conducted by using a data set of one decade at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), showed how false news and information sell
faster than the true one on Twitter. It also showed how rumors tweeted on the social media
platform spread rapidly and are retweeted at a faster rate when compared to the true news
(Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018).
Previously, the media worked as a link between information providers and
audiences. However, this has changed with the advent of social media where information
is not only generated but also propagated. Thus, social media is often accused of shaping
public debate and unfairly engineering people’s behavior and undermining the democratic
process instead of nurturing a healthy public sphere (Marda & Milan, 2018).
Social Media acts as a facilitator of democracy by providing the public with equal
access to information and equal opportunities to participate. The public sphere is the
nexus between public life and civil society. It is that space of the society where access is
guaranteed to all the citizens to engage and discuss the matters of general interest to form
a public opinion (Habermas, Lennox, & Lennox, 1964). Evolution of social media and its
increasing role as a platform for its users to express their opinions has guaranteed freedom
in an unrestricted way. Social media collects information and opinions from all its
audiences irrespective of the class they belong to – bourgeois or proletariat – and thus
provides a neutral space for all those who are a part of the civil society to discuss any
issue of common interest. Since it fulfills the basic pre-requisites of providing space,
albeit digitally, for free speech of participants, it becomes a public sphere virtually.
However, how civil society uses social media creates a dilemma if social media is
an effective public sphere or merely acts as a chaotic echo chamber for the public reason
being, social media has fewer central nodes, gatekeepers or agenda setters than the
traditional media. This makes social media susceptible to unverified and misleading
content viz. fake news.

Fake News in the Indian Context

Fake news on social media has a massive impact on the opinions of people across the
world. In the Indian context, the consequences of spreading fake news have been far from
what one could contemplate. According to a report by Indo-Asian News Service (2018),
A significant portion of such messages revolves around the basic idea of
nationalism and nation-building. In scenarios like these, where the main idea
behind spreading news is related to nationalism, the facts become less important
for the users than the emotional desire to bolster their national identity.
739
 Media Watch 10 (3)

Unlike other countries, the prime distributor of fake news in India is WhatsApp,
but not other social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter(What’s Driving India’s Fake
News Problem? 2018). WhatsApp, a mobile messaging application, was acquired by the
social media giant - Facebook, in 2014 (Rushe, 2014). This social media platform allows
its users to share information by forwarding it to other users in various groups and
broadcast lists within the same platform which has led to widespread, unchecked
distribution of information rarely vetted by users. It has not only misinformed the users on
social media but also triggered violence and barbaric killings around the country.
In 2018, PanjuriKachari, a small village in Assam, witnessed one of the most
gruesome cases of lynching. The smartphone footage which went viral, showed two blood-
soaked men pleading for their lives, moments later they were dead. These two men who
were from Guwahati, capital of the north-eastern state of Assam, were beaten to death by
a crazed village mob wielding bamboo sticks, machetes, and rocks, as they were mistaken
to be child kidnappers. The case was discussed in various media platform as to how
rumors spread on Facebook and WhatsApp in India lead to the death of two people. Around
20 people were victims to cases of lynching in May and June 2018 alone, due to the viral
news spread through Facebook and WhatsApp (Agence France-Presse, 2018). At least 18
people were killed as a result of the violence fuelled by the rumors spread on WhatsApp in
2018 (Bassi & Sengupta, 2018).
Outbursts of violence in Shillong due to communal differences between two groups;
lynching of two men by an angry mob, who presumed the victims to be cattle thieves in
Jharkhand; and death of two persons in Assam after being misunderstood as child lifters
by a mob are some instances. These instances resulted in pushing the West Bengal
government to work towards implementation of a law. The violence in these places was
because of the spread of hatred and misinformation on social media. The proposed
legislation of the new law has strict actions in place against individuals or organizations
that are responsible for spreading hatred and fake news in society, and for disrupting
harmony in a public sphere. Such strict actions include jail sentences to citizens for
posting fake news, if such news causes fear or alarm in public (PTI, 2018).
According to a BBC analysis, in the year 2018, at least 32 people were killed in
incidents involving rumors spread on social media or messaging apps (What’s Driving
India’s Fake News Problem? 2018). All this called for the government to take some effective
actions to curb the spread of misinformation. Following the various cases of lynching
witnessed in India, in August 2018, WhatsApp had to start rolling out the five chat limit for
forwarding messages to control the spread of fake news (Agarwal, 2018).

Regulating Fake News

Social media platforms, in contrast to the traditional and conventional media outlets,
enjoy an unchecked space. Since social media platforms provide a free platform for expression
of speech and opinions by its users, therefore, no laws can be practically implemented to
restrict the freedom of the users. This makes it almost impossible to eradicate fake news
from social media as the flow of information, or the content cannot be entirely restricted.
Although, this does not rule out the possibility to regulate the medium/platform.
There have been various regulating methods implemented by different nations, to
combat the propagation of fake news. These regulatory mechanisms have been initiated
involving multiple stakeholders, which include self-regulation by social media platforms,
legal injunction to curb fake news, implementation of the law, and constitutional remedies
and independent regulatory bodies.
740
Bali & Desai

Reality check in USA and India

Various social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp have been
implementing self-regulatory mechanisms over the last couple of years in response to
increasing fake news propagation. The social media giant, Facebook, received much criticism
for its role in the propagation of fake news during the US 2016 Presidential Election. The
Head of Cybersecurity Policy of Facebook, Nathaniel Gleicher, said in its blog post on
November 2018 that it had identified around 30 Facebook accounts and 85 Instagram
accounts that may be engaged in coordinated inauthentic behavior and blocked them on
US mid-term Election Day because of their suspicious links to Internet Research Agency
(Gleicher, 2018). Similarly, in India, ahead of the 2018 Assembly election in Rajasthan,
Facebook removed thousands of pages, groups, and accounts involved in coordinated
inauthentic behavior in a bid to curb fake news through improved artificial intelligence
(Facebook in Race to Curb Fake News, 2018).
Meanwhile, Twitter, which is one of the major influencing social media in the US,
identified more than 4,600 accounts and 10 million tweets affiliated with the Internet
Research Agency, that played a role in meddling in the US elections, including the US 2016
Presidential elections (Facebook Blocks 115 Accounts Ahead of US Midterm Elections,
2018). In India, WhatsApp is more dominant than Twitter, as a social media platform, has
played the role of primary vehicle in the circulation of fake news. It has taken a few steps
in the regulation of spreading of fake news under pressure from the Indian government.
Recently, it rolled out the five chat limit for each forward message to limit the spread of
messages by way of group messages. This step was implemented to act as a speed breaker
to effectively handle the menace of rumors and fake news. The five chat limit restricts a
person from forwarding a particular message to only five members at once (Agarwal, 2018).
One has to understand that regulatory mechanisms restrict and penalize the
perpetrators. Technical measures can only contain the propagation of fake news. However,
fake news is not just a technical issue. Instead, it is more of a social problem since the root
problem is not technology but the way we use it. Even when WhatsApp rolled out five chat
limit, there were loopholes in the process. The restriction only limited forwarding of a
message at one time; it could still be circulated by merely editing it or forwarding it to five
other people multiple times. Hence, one needs to look at the root cause of this problem to
be able to find a sustainable solution.

Policy Intervention by Various Nations

Apart from self-regulatory measures, government intervention is also one of the most
common methods implemented by nations around the world to combat fake news. Here, the
government is expected to intervene by bringing in a law to restrict the usage or penalize
the perpetrators if the information they share on social media platforms does not conform
to certain standards. The following segment discusses policy measures taken by some of
the countries to regulate fake news and enable vibrancy of the virtual public sphere.
Italy: In 2017, lawmakers and regulators in Italy felt a need to introduce new rules for fake
news. Since spreading of fake news was highly debated concern during their constitutional
referendum campaign, a legislative proposal was submitted in the Senate of the Republic.
This proposed law criminalized sharing and posting of ‘false, exaggerated or biased’
information and imposed fines of up to 5000 Euros. It proposed imprisonment in cases of
fake news as grave as inciting violence or crime and obligated the Internet Service Providers
741
 Media Watch 10 (3)

(ISP) with a responsibility to monitor their role in regulating the content and in the removal
of such news that is not reliable and true (Apa & Bassini, 2017). Part of the law was faced
resistance since it used vague terms like ‘false or exaggerated or biased’ news, which can
take a wide range of definitions. Also, the law partly challenged the freedom of expression
under their Constitution (Tambini, 2017).
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), ‘Freedom of Expression’
discusses the right to freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and
ideas without interference by public authority. Though the Article gives public a right to
express, it also qualifies the right by stating that this freedom of expression can only be
exercised subject to certain such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law. Such qualifications shall be based keeping in mind national security,
territorial integrity, public safety, disorder or crime, health or morals, reputation or rights
of others, the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintenance of authority
and impartiality of the judiciary(Council of Europe, 1970).
Malaysia: In the run-up to 2018 Malaysian general elections, the former Prime Minister of
Malaysia, Najib Razak, introduced Anti-Fake News Act 2018, after the Billon anti-fake news
received the Malaysian King’s assent. Under this law, publishers of the content were required
to immediately remove the published content if it was suspected to contain fake news
(Malaysia’s anti-fake news legislation becomes law, is now enforceable, 2018). This Bill
would give rise to a conflict in the constitutional rights of people in a democratic nation.
Such a law which regulates the people from voicing their opinions is a regressive one. This
law introduced by former Prime Minister was also alleged to curtail the free form of
political speech. However, the current government in August 2018 attempted to repeal the
law quoting that the existing laws relating to communication and media are “sufficient” to
tackle fake news in the country (Tan, 2018). Although, the Bill to repeal the existing Anti-
Fake News 2018 Bill was passed in the lower house in August, it was later rejected by the
Senator (Raj & Su-Lyn, 2018). It is interesting to note that such laws which regulate what the
public can opine and speak sets a wrong precedent in a democratic space where people
enjoy the right to free speech.
Germany: In Germany, the government brought in a law, titled “Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz”
(Network Enforcement Act)(NetzDG), which came into effect on January 1, 2018. This law
mandates online platforms to remove “obviously illegal” posts within 24 hours or risk
fines of up to €50 million (Funke, 2018). Though this law was implemented by the German
government to reduce the spread of misinformation, it received much flak. Primarily because
when regulation of content happens on social media platforms, it often leads to depreciation
of the democracy in place. Such law which blindly restricts the speech of its people, based
on specific key-word parameters, can be used as a tool by the government to suppress
power, voice and disturb the democratic space in the public sphere. If unchecked, such a
move can turn into systematic state-based surveillance and censorship, which could
adversely undermine democracy in the nation (Marda & Milan, 2018).
France: After Italy introduced a law criminalizing the sharing and posting of ‘false,
exaggerated or biased’ information along with Germany passing legislation to fight back
fake news, France also decided to take pro-active steps to deal with the issue of fake news.
French Parliament amended its Constitution in November 2018, at the National Assembly,
after being opposed by the Senate twice earlier and passed a law to fight the handling of
information. It aimed to check the rapid dissemination of fake news through social networks
and foreign media outlets. This law gave particular attention to election campaigns and
742
Bali & Desai

attempted to thwart any danger posed by available tools during elections. The law stipulated
measures like transparency obligations for digital platforms and the creation of legal
injunction for election campaign periods. In compliance with the former measure, digital
platforms will now have to publish the name of the author and the amount paid for any of
their sponsored content. Under the latter, it would enable an interim judge to swiftly halt
the circulation of “fake news1” by way of legal injunction. Also, the official law protects the
freedom of journalistic work by stating that the text is aimed at deliberate attempts to
manipulate information (French Gouvernement, 2018). Critics argue that the controversial
law could jeopardize democracy and act as censorship. Also, the Russian media heavily
criticized this law, saying it could be used to target Russian media outlets (Fiorentino, 2018).

Social Media, Fake News, and Chaos

With the largest Whatsapp market in the world, and a place where users forward more
content than anywhere else, India has a unique challenge while tackling the issue of fake
news through social media applications like WhatsApp.
Concerns have been raised in India regarding the liability of the WhatsApp group
administrators, citing instances where the administrators of WhatsApp groups were
arrested. In a joint order issued by District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police
of Varanasi (2017), stated that an FIR could be filed against the group administrators if
any factually incorrect, rumor or misleading information was circulated on a social media
group. The response from State Cyber Crime of Maharashtra (2018) mentioned the challenge
police faced in terms of keeping a watch on WhatsApp content since the platform is end-to-
end encrypted. Holding WhatsApp group administrators liable for a crime done by another
person is unconstitutional and a plain misuse of criminal law. Circulating a mysterious
message intended to create ill-will or enmity is a cognizable and non-bailable offense under
Sec. 505 of the Indian Penal Code (Singh, 2018). Holding group admins liable for failing to
regulate fake news and hate speech by deleting such posts from WhatsApp is impractical
since there are other legal implications. If the admin deletes such content, it would mean
destroying evidence, which is punishable under Sec. 204 of IPC (Alexander, 2018).
In addition to these measures, a Delhi High Court judgment clarified that holding
administrators responsible for content someone else had posted was illogical. In the
judgment, the court said that “…to make an administrator of an online platform liable for
defamation would be like making the manufacturer of the newsprint on which defamatory
statements are published liable for defamation” (Ashish Bhalla vs. Suresh Chaudhary,&
Others, 2016).

Role of Investigating Agencies, Citizens and Police

One of the most underrated steps towards forming policies to curb fake news is the role
played by the citizens. They form a significant chunk of the audience who are susceptible
to misinformation and fake news. Investigating agencies and Police also can complement
and enhance the role played by the civil society in controlling the spreading of fake news.
Viral news is defined as networked news stories that spread online mostly through
social media in a much faster and wider manner than other news stories (Al-Rawi, 2019).
The sharing and re-sharing of videos on social sites, blogs e-mail, and other means have
given rise to the phenomenon of viral videos—videos that become popular through internet
sharing (Broxton, Interian, Vaver, &Wattenhofer, 2013). These viral videos often comprise
babies staring into the screen, extreme sports videos, and cat videos, and so on.
743
 Media Watch 10 (3)

In a world dominated by social media applications like WhatsApp, a message

forwarding capability is a crucial feature. While some messages might be neutrally providing
information, others can be harmful. When users exploit this feature of message forwarding
haphazardly to forward a message without realizing its implications, it leads to viral
forwarding. A typical viral forward that incites incidents of violence in the form of mob
lynching often contains harmful, and often untrue, information that can mislead the reader.
In March 2018, a district in the Telangana state of India, named JogulambaGadwal,
fell prey to viral forwards on WhatsApp. These forwards carried fake photographs of
villagers of that district being depicted as organ harvesters and child kidnappers. As part
of these forwards, many videos were circulated to advise the villagers to hide at sundown.
The terrified villagers imposed curfews, and as a result, streets fell silent after dark. As the
village started falling into a frenzy, several innocents suspected of being abductors were
mobbed and assaulted. Amid all the chaotic occurrences, police approached the villagers
with a method that could cater to bringing effective awareness in them. Since the people,
being dealt with, were digitally illiterate, adoption of traditional methods appeared to be
the most sensible option in bring awareness about something as modern as WhatsApp and
social media. The localized problem was countered by the police using ‘Janapadam’ which
translates to people’s path. As a part of this move, police started educating the villagers
about misinformation. By incorporating the art of folklore, an immediate connection was
established with the local people. This form of folklore involved storytelling with the local
people performing short skits, usually belonging to lower communities. These skits typically
featured one man and two women who would sit together and narrate a story which would
end with a message promoting digital literacy. These skits would range from a few minutes
to a few hours. This move by the police witnessed broader reach and acceptance among the
local communities because of their audience-targeted approach (Singh V., 2019).
In July 2018, the Uttar Pradesh decided on setting up ‘Digital Armies’ comprised of
prominent residents along with ex-servicemen, teachers, doctors, advocates, and
journalists. WhatsApp groups will be formed to keep a vigil on inflammatory posts, rumor-
mongering, and cases of lynching. By way of the initiative, all the police stations in the
state will manage these WhatsApp groups. The ‘digital volunteers’ will share with the
police various information, rumors, photographs, and videos, of their respective areas,
that qualify as fake news on the social media and at the same time, disseminate correct
information among the locals to curb the spread of rumors. This initiative was in the wake
of the Central government’s directions to take effective steps to stop the spread of rumors
and fake news (PTI, 2018). This move can bring in and place the civic society at the helm of
steps required to be undertaken in the fight against fake news propagation.

Provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 69 (1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relate to how the Controller can
extend decryption of information facilities to any agency for intercepting any information
transmitted through any computer resource. The person-in-charge of the computer resource
shall, when called upon by any agency directed under Section 69 (1), extend all facilities
and technical assistance to decrypt the information. Any person who fails to assist the
agency referred to in Section 69 (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years.
Section 79 of the Act, provides for cases when the Network service providers or
intermediaries are not held liable. This provision of law is precisely for the removal of
doubts and thus declares that no person providing any service as a network service provider/
744
Bali & Desai

intermediary shall be liable under this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder for any
third party information or data made available by him. This provision comes into play is
if he proves that the offense or contravention was committed without his knowledge or that
he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offense or
contravention. Also, new proposed changes under Section 79 require the online platforms
to deploy technology-based automated tools or appropriate mechanisms to proactively
identify or remove or disable access to illegal information or content.
In September 2018, Gauba Committee, a team reporting to government on menacing
instances of fake news leading to cases of lynching came up with a recommendation. The
Committee, headed by the home secretary of India, Rajiv Gauba, recommended that India
heads of the global internet and social media giants should face criminal proceedings if
their platforms are used to propagate fake news or campaigns that incite violence that
leads to riots and cases of lynching (Doval, 2018). In June, Gauba urged the representatives
of Google and Facebook to take appropriate measures to filter fake and explosive content.
The inter-ministerial committee added that if social networks are used to peddle
information that contravenes Sections 69 and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000,
it has to be addressed in a time-bound manner. Even the central government appeared to
have taken steps in drafting new guidelines to make the social media platforms bound to
respond to complaints about fake news in a few hours (PTI, 2018). The problem that looms
this recommendation is the question of who decides which content is suspicious and
needs to be pulled down. Again, here, the involvement of government as overseeing body of
the committee’s recommendations brings in the possibility of a conflict of interests while
drawing a line separating the suspicious content. Even though, government delegates the
responsibility of censoring the content to private social media corporations, the problem
of where to draw a line persists. Media corporations need to have a sufficient understanding
of how social media algorithms function in detecting the keywords in the content and
identifying them as suspicious to overcome this problem.

Protection of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

In India, Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution provides for the protection of the human right
to freedom of speech and expression. Hence, any attempt to suppress the voice of people in
a public sphere behind the garb of an Anti-Fake News Bill will lead to a situation of a
constitutional violation. One has to have a better understanding of the role of government
in curbing the propagation of fake news to make sure that even the softest of voices are
heard. Also, improperly implemented laws cause redundancy of existing provisions. Article
19 (2) of Indian Constitution, already provides that nothing shall affect the operation of
any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19 (1). Such
restriction shall be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or about
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense.
Even the Human Rights Watch of Germany, denounced the law introduced by the
country, as it was inconsistent with the country’s obligation to respect free speech. The
Human Rights Watch quoted that it became complicated for a social media company to
decide which content was suspicious since it involved the usage of a nuanced understanding
of context and culture. Also, there was no provision of a judicial remedy to a person,
should his right to free speech be illegally violated by one of these social media
corporate(Germany: Flawed Social Media Law, 2018).
745
 Media Watch 10 (3)

Regulatory Body

One more mechanism in pursuit of fixing the fake news plague is the establishment of the
Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), a regulating body. DNPA is an establishment
initiated by ten leading media companies in India in response to increasing pressure from
Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry to foster digital space in the country. Along
with self-regulatory steps, it even welcomed the idea to work together with the government
and other similar associations. This regulatory body for digital media was initiated in line
with Press Council of India (PCI) for print and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) for
television news, to come up with a cleansed digital information network.
However, there is one major problem with this initiative, though it says that the
organization is open to any online news publisher and that the board will clear all the
membership applications, one look at the current founding team give speaks a different
story. The very purpose here looks defeated since all its founder members are either
television or print media companies for whom; digital news platform forms a small part of
their operations. This scenario raises many doubts about the effectiveness of the
organization since it might give rise to a conflict of interests. The very issue of the
propagation of fake news in the digital space comes back to haunt us if the players of the
digital space like Scroll, The Print, The Wire, Inc42, Medianama, and many like these are
left out of the founders’ community. These new-age media companies seem to be steering
away from the association. Pahwa, founder of Medianama, in an email response, admitted
differences in opinions as a reason for not showing interest in being a part of such a self-
regulatory body. He added that such a self-regulatory body leads to unnecessary restriction
by the government on freedom of speech, which is already restricted under Article 19(2) of
the Indian constitution. He further suggested that each publication must be responsible
for its published content. So, DNPA will have to prove how it is different from its counterpart:
News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), to be effective and clear skepticism around
its reliability. NBSA, which was established to check broadcast media companies, received
much flak a few years ago for being ineffective in addressing many complaints regarding
fake news (Anupam, 2018).

Challenges in Implementation

News audience has become vulnerable to fake news due to their naivety towards the threats
it poses. Audiences show more interest towards extensive consumption of social media
platforms citing the power of their fundamental rights and claiming democratic
participation. However, there is little importance given to the awareness of regulating
content on social media. Social media feeds on the trust of the civil society by harnessing
the public emotions of the participants and persuading them into sharing specific content
(Tambini, 2017). When Italy came up with rules to criminalize sharing and posting of
‘false, exaggerated or biased’ information by imposing fines and bringing in imprisonment
provisions, it attracted criticism for redundancy and challenging the Freedom of Expression
under their Constitution. Germany too, earned its share of criticism, when it mandated
online platforms to remove “obviously illegal” posts within 24 hours to avoid levy of
exorbitant fines. Similarly, the Malaysian government also attempted to repeal the existing
Anti-Fake News 2018 Bill to safeguard the democratic space where people enjoy a right to
free speech. France faced backlash for its move, which was argued as a threat to democracy
and censorship to foreign media outlets.

746
Bali & Desai

However, India can learn lessons from criticism the countries mentioned above
faced in the implementation of policies in their countries. One can understand that the
policies required to regulate content are highly sensitive. Therefore public voice and their
rights are to be considered with care before implementing any policy that intends to regulate
content. India can incorporate one of the following strategies, where importance is given
to spreading awareness among stakeholders instead of regulating content and violating
the constitutional provisions.

Awareness—An Alternative

One of the most significant factors leading to a broader consumption of fake news among
users is their limited ability to differentiate facts from opinions. Lack of aptitude of the
audience to verify the news shared on social media before consuming is leading them to
consume potentially false information. To enable them to do so would require a concrete
measure in terms of enhancing their media literacy.
Media or News literacy has been one of the most promising solutions recommended
by many experts around the world. In a seminar held by Education Writers Association in
New Orleans (2018), speakers were of a consensus that schools need to teach their students
how to separate false news from the credible ones since news literacy could act as a
vaccine against fake news (Stringer, 2018). According to a survey conducted among children
of age 10 to 18 years by the Common Sense Media in 2017, 44% of the surveyed children felt
that they could differentiate fake stories from the real ones. Although, around 31% of kids
who shared a news story on social media, later found out that the shared story was wrong
or inaccurate (Robb, 2017). The initiative also needs to be backed by the ability to
understand the relationship between news and ownership patterns to evaluate the
information based on its source credibility.
In India, awareness campaigns have been released by service providers to alert
users about the consequences of fake news and why it is important to be self-aware before
forwarding any message. In December 2018, WhatsApp rolled out three ad films as a part
of their strategy to fight back circulation of fake news ahead of general elections these
campaigns asked the users to check the integrity of the information they receive on forward
messages, before sharing it to others.
Purpose of any news is to make people aware of what is happening around and
allow people to have a common ground to converse to constitute a dynamic public sphere.
Social media, with its reach, popularity, and instantaneity, is a potent tool for
communication development if used. Otherwise, it could also become a double-edged
sword. Fake News has become a menace which could only be curbed when collective
efforts are made from individual to policy level.

note: 1 Fake news is defined as per the criteria set in 1881 law on the freedom of the press.

References

Agarwal, S. (2018, July 21). WhatsApp to limit message forwarding to five chats in India. Retrieved
December 09, 2018, from The Economic Times: https://
ec o no m i c tim es.india ti m es.c o m / tec h/ i nter net/wha ts a pp-to -lim it-m essa ge-
forwarding-to-five-chats-in-india/articleshow/65063188.cms
Agence France-Presse [AFP]. (2018, July 14). Death by ‘fake news’: social media-fuelled lynchings
shock India - The Siasat Daily English. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from Dailyhunt:

747
 Media Watch 10 (3)

https: // m.daily hunt.in/ news/ india /english/the+sia sa t+daily +english-epaper -

siaseten/death+by +f ak e+news+so cial+media+fuelled+lynchings+shoc k+india-
newsid-92331145
Alexander, S. (2018, July 14). Can WhatsApp Admins be Jailed For Fake & Hate Messages? A Fact
File | | BOOM. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from Boom Live: https://www.boomlive.in/
can-whatsapp-admins-be-jailed-for-fake-hate-messages-a-factfile/
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017, February). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 211–236. Retrieved December 01, 2018
Al-Rawi, A. (2019). V iral News on Social Media. Digital Journalism, 63-79.
Anupam, S. (2018, September 26). Leading Media Companies Form DNPA To Curb Fake News, But
Digital-Only Media Stays Away From It. Retrieved from Inc42 Media: https://inc42.com/
buzz/leading-media-companies-form-dnpa-to-curb-fake-news-but-digital-only-
media-stays-away-from-it/
Apa, E.., & Bassini, M. (2017, February 07). Italy - Legislative proposal on fake news. Retrieved
from IRIS Merlin: https://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2017/5/article27.en.html
Ashish Bhalla vs. Suresh Chaudhary and Others (Delhi High Court November 29, 2016).
Atreya, S. (2018, September 25). Social Media and Fake News. (P. Desai, Interviewer)
Bassi, S., & Sengupta, J. (2018, July 08). Lynchings sparked by WhatsApp child-kidnap rumours
sweep across India. Retrieved December 05, 2018, from CBCnews: https://www.cbc.ca/
news/world/india-child-kidnap-abduction-video-rumours-killings-1.4737041
Berduygina, O. N., Vladimirova, T. N., & Chernyaeva, E. V. (2019). Trends in the Spread of Fake
News in Mass Media. Media Watch, 122-132.
Bharali, B., & Goswami, A. L. (2018). Fake News: Credibility, Cultivation Syndrome, and New
Age Media. Media Watch, 118-130.
Broxton, T., Interian, Y., Vaver, J., &Wattenhofer, M. (2013, April). Catching a viral video.
Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 241-259.
Chang, A. (2018, May 2). The Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal explained with a simple
diagram. Retrieved December 01, 2018, from Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/3/23/17151916/facebook-cambridge-analytica-trump-diagram
Council of Europe. (1970, September 21). European Convention on Human Rights.
Doval, P. (2018, September 01). India heads of IT giants may face criminal charges over fake
news. The Times of India. Retrieved December 18, 2018
Facebook Blocks 115 Accounts Ahead of US Midterm Elections. (2018, November 06). Retrieved
December 09, 2018, from Fox 40: https://fox40.com/2018/11/06/facebook-blocks-115-
accounts-ahead-of-us-midterm-elections/
Facebook in the race to curb fake news. (2018, November 23). The Hindu, p. 11. Retrieved
December 11, 2018
Farooq, G. (2018). Politics of Fake News: How WhatsApp Became a Potent Propaganda Tool
in India. Media Watch, 106-117.
Fiorentino, M.-R. (2018, November 22). France passes controversial ‘fake news’ law. Retrieved
February 02, 2019, from Euronews: https://www.euronews.com/2018/11/22/france-
passes-co ntroversial-fake-news-law
Frank, R. (2015). Caveat Lector: Fake News as Folklore. The Journal of American Folklore, 315-332.
French Gouvernement. (2018). Combating the manipulation of information.
Funke, D., (2018, July 25). Here’s what the world is doing to tackle fake news. India can
learn. The Print. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://theprint.in/opinion/
heres-what-the-world-is-doing-to-tackle-fake-news-india-can-learn/88195/
Germany: Flawed Social Media Law. (2018, February 14). Retrieved December 19, 2018, from
Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-
so cial-m edia -law
Gleicher, N. (2018). Election Update. Facebook Newsroom.

748
Bali & Desai

Habermas, J., Lennox, S., & Lennox, F. (1964). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article
(1964). New German Critique, 49-55.
Indo-Asian News Service. (2018, November 12). Fake News Spreading In India Due To “Rising Tide
Of Nationalism”: Report. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from NDTV: https://
www.ndtv.com/india-news/beyond-fake-news-bbc-fake-news-in-india-spreading-
due-to-rising-tide-of-nationalism-1946038
Lazer, D., Baum, M., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A., Greenhill, K., Menczer, F., . . . Nyhan, B. (2018,
March 09). The science of fake news. Science, pp. 1094-1096.
Lima Quintanilha, T., Torres da Silva, M., & Lapa, T. (2019). Fake news and its impact on trust
in the news. Using the Portuguese case to establish lines of differentiation.
Communication & Society, 17-33.
Malaysia’s anti-fake news legislation becomes law, is now enforceable. (2018, April 11). Retrieved
from The Straits Times: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysias-
anti-fake-news-legislation-becomes-la w-is-now-enforceable
Marda, V., & Milan, S. (2018). Wisdom of the Crowd: Multistakeholder Perspectives on the
Fake News Debate. Internet Policy Review series, Annenberg School of Communication.
Press Trust of India [PTI]. (2018, June 15). West Bengal government plans new law to tackle
fake news on social media. The Indian Express. Retrieved December 19, 2018, from
The Indian Express News: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/west-bengal-
plans-new-law-to-tackle-fake-news-on-social-media-5218445/
PTI. (2018, August 29). Government mulls action against India heads of social media on failure to
check fake news. Retrieved January 06, 2019, from The Economic Times: https://
ec onomictimes.indiatimes.com /news/po litic s-and-nation/go ver nm ent-mulls-
a c tion-a ga inst-india -hea ds-o f -soc ia l-m edia -o n-fa ilur e-to -c hec k -fa k e-news/
articleshow/65597519.cms
PTI. (2018, July 23). U.P. police to set up ‘Digital Armies.’ The Hindu.
PTI. (2018, December 03). WhatsApp rolls out TV campaign in India to tackle fake news. Retrieved
December 19, 2018, from A Livemint News Web site: https://www.livemint.com/
Co mpa nies/Q U7LWGc Hf0 m49 uiB qDR zlN /WhatsApp-ro lls-out-T V-c ampaign-in-
India-to-tackle-fake-news.html
Raj, R., & Su-Lyn, B. (2018, September 12). With historic rejection of Anti-Fake News Act repeal,
Senator wants law improved | Malay Mail. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from Malaysia
| Malay Mail: https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2018/09/12/with-
historic-rejection-of-anti-fake-news-act-repeal-senator-wants-law-impr/167 1785
Robb, M. (2017, March 07). Our New Research Shows Where Kids Get Their News and How They
Feel About It. Retrieved from Common Sense Media: https://
www.co mm onsensemedia.org/ blo g/our-new-resea rc h-shows-where-k ids-get-
their-news-and-how-they-feel-about-it
Rushe, D. (2014, February 20). WhatsApp: Facebook acquires messaging service in $19bn deal.
Retrieved from The Guardian Web site: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/
2014/feb/19/facebook-buys-whatsapp-16bn-deal
Shafi, S., & Ravikumar, M. (2018). Dynamics of Fake News Dissemination: A Case Study in the
Indian context. Media Watch, 131-140.
Singh, A. (2018). Circulating messages intended to create ill-will. (Alexander, Interviewer)
Singh, V. (2019, January 09). An ancient story-telling technique is helping cops fight fake news in
India. Retrieved from Quartz India: https://qz.com/india/1518770/indian-cops-fight-
whatsapp-fake-news-with-ancient-story-telling/
Stringer, K. (2018, March 12). Push for Media Literacy Takes on Urgency Amid Rising of ‘Fake News.’
Retrieved January 08, 2019, from Education Writers Association: https://
www.ewa.org/blog-educated-reporter/push-media-literacy-takes-urgency-amid-
rise-fake-news

749
 Media Watch 10 (3)

Tambini, D. (2017). Fake News: Public Policy Responses. London: Media Policy Project, London
School of Economics and Political Science.
Tan, J. (2018, August 17). Malaysia repeals anti-fake news bill, says ‘sufficient’ laws exist to tackle
the issue. Retrieved December 19, 2018, from Marketing Interactive: https://
www.ma r keting-intera c tiv e.c o m / m alay sia -repea ls-a nti-fa ke-news-bill-say s-
sufficient-laws-exist-to-tackle-issue/
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science,
1146-1151.
What’s driving India’s fake news problem? (2018, November 12). Retrieved December 05, 2018,
from The Week UK: https://www.theweek.co.uk/97720/what-s-driving-india-s-fake-
news-problem

Aasita Bali (Ph.D., CHRIST, 2018) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Media
Studies, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, India. Her research interests include
Indian cinema, millennial studies, media theories, media psychology, advertising, and
digital media.
Prathik Desai is currently pursuing his Masters in Media and Communication Studies at
CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, India. His areas of research interest include
social media, political communication, and ecology.

750